RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Presentation on ICANN mission
- To: <pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Presentation on ICANN mission
- From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 02:21:54 +1100
> In the course of your presentation this morning, you were
> interrupted at one point by Jon Nevett, who asked whether the
> outcome of this proceeding could have effect on registry
> agreements after their current terms. I believe you indicated
> your support for this proposition.
Thanks for providing your constituency's position on this issue.
Just to be clear, there is a difference between:
(1) A current registry operator renewing its current gTLD agreement,
where their current agreement includes provisions relating to renewal,
(2) ICANN establishing an agreement with a new registry operator for the
same existing gTLD after the current term of a registry agreement ends
(ie the existing operator chooses not to renew its agreement, or ICANN
terminates or refuses to renew the agreement for other reasons).
The applicability of policies in this area are very restricted in case
(1) by the terms in the current agreement as you point out. In the
second case, the policies could be applied - but this would need to be
done consistent with ICANN's core values to treat registry operators
The issue is further complicated by the different renewal provisions in
the current agreements.