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

[Liz Williams <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Colleagues

In the lead up to our meeting on Monday 4 December 0h800 - 10h00 it  
would be helpful to prepare some "issue points" (can't think of a  
better description as I'm just off the plane) to address the concerns  
set out by some members of the group.

It will greatly help me, particularly as I am preparing the draft of  
the Task Force Report which is due to go to the Council for its mid  
January meeting.

With that in mind, it would also be helpful for the group to agree on  
a work schedule to complete the TF's work in a timely way.

Kind regards and I hope you've all arrived safely in SP.

Liz
.....................................................

Liz Williams
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN - Brussels
+32 2 234 7874 tel
+32 2 234 7848 fax
+32 497 07 4243 mob




On 30 Nov 2006, at 23:40, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 30 nov 2006, at 22.11, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>
> > Whether or not your assertion is right (i.e, that the task force does
> > not address these questions), the fundamental questions I have raised
> > are crucial to the work of the task force.  Why continue working on
> > items that are outside the scope?  Ignoring the fundamental flaw will
> > not make it go away.
>
> Continuing to repeat that it is out of scope does not make it so.
> I think that you should take that argument up in another more  
> appropriate venue.
>
> > I suppose the Task Force can hypothesize as much as it wants on
> > conditions that it would like to see imposed on registry operators if
> > that is what it chooses to do, but at the end of the day, that
> > discussion will be just academic.  It cannot apply to .com  
> > and .net or
> > any of the other existing registries.
>
> Again, neither your assertion nor wishing makes it so.  And  
> repeating it continuously doesn't make something more true - though  
> it is a familiar polemic technique.  Lawyers and the rest of the  
> legal establishment will be responsible for the process of  
> determining when any consensus policy will become applicable to  
> existing contracts.   I am not a lawyer, although i grew up  
> surrounded by them, and thus know no law.  What I do know is that  
> parties in a case generally are not able to define the outcome of a  
> case with accuracy.  All they can can do is argue their case.  But  
> the Task Force, and its mailing list, is not a court, and thus is  
> not the place to argue your case about what can and cannot be  
> applied to existing contracts, just renewed contracts, or contracts  
> soon to be reviewed/renewed.
>
>
> a.