Re: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] DoC Approved .com Agreement

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Rather then comment on your specific points, I want to reiterate my  
overall view on  your fundamental suggestion:

On 30 nov 2006, at 20.21, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> If the above is correct,
> then what is the status of the Task Force and
> the work it is producing?  Should we just limit the work of the task
> force to those items that may be in scope (i.e., traffic data,  
> security,
> etc.)?
>
> I truly believe these questions need to be addressed before we spend
> more time on any of these issues.

The status of the Task Force and whether or not any of the ToR it is  
out of scope for the Task Force is _not_ an issue that is in scope  
for the Task Force. As I understand it, a Task Force neither creates  
its own scope nor does it redefine its scope.  Our scope is defined  
by the council.  We asked the council once to reconsider the scope,  
they told us to keep working on the ToR as it exists.  That should  
resolve the subject as far as this Task Force is concerned.  It is  
the Task Force's job to make recommendations to the council and it is  
for the the ICANN community, the council, the board and the armies of  
lawyers to judge the appropriateness etc of those recommendations or  
the time at which they would become applicable to various contracts  
based on the specific conflicting contractual constraints.  And it is  
the council's job to consider the status of the task force and its ToR.

I believe that descending again into the morass of whether or or not  
our ToR is out of scope is a unwarranted distraction that we should  
avoid at all costs.  I am personally very much against putting it on  
the TF agenda.  I still believe we should finish our work the best we  
are able and pass it along for others for disposition.

So while your questions may need to be addressed, I do not believe  
the Task Force is the place for addressing them.

a.