ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Quick notes on current Draft final report

  • To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Quick notes on current Draft final report
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 17:22:16 -0500


I am not worried about your harshness, but thanks for the concern. I am worried about getting a fair and accurate report of the events of the TF out as soon as possible.

A factual chronicling of events includes:
- the protests by the Registry constituency
- that the Registry was alone in its protests.
- that the TF in the person of the TF chair appealed to the council for guidance
- that we receive guidance to continue with the ToR as given
- that we did continue.

Now I am not a lawyer and thus am not equipped to argue whether your argument from the particular to the aggregate is valid; i.e. that because of each registry having a contract with ICANN (in its role as a corporation in the public trust with a Board of directors whose decisions are motivated by the needs of its constituencies and the public good) one can conclude that your constituency has truth on its side in regards to contracts and the relation of PDP's to contracts and contract renewals. This is, however, not relevant. What is relevant is that we had a ToR, the ToR was confirmed and the sequence of events happened as they happened. And what is important is that the full set of events be documented and not just one side for the report to be accurate, and fair.

I do not wish for this argument to hold up the document at all, and request that Liz makes the requested edits. If the Registry constituency cannot accept the report because of this edit, I understand, and expect to see comments to that effect during the review period.


On 7 mar 2007, at 15.01, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

This may come across as harsh, but I am trying to be objective and
factual.  The answer to your question is quite simple.

The reason our claim of scope is different than the opinion of the Task
Force or Council, is that we (the registries) have contracts with ICANN
that defined (in certain areas) the scope of Policy Development. The
registries negotiated those contracts with ICANN, a private party. The
contracts were based on a meeting of the minds that we the registries
had with the ICANN.

A contract is a legal document that results after two parties have a
meeting of the minds on the subject matter of the contracts. While it
can be interpreted by outside parties (as the task force has done in
this case), if the two parties to the contract agree on an
interpretation that is different than the view of the outside party, the
view of the two contracting parties prevail.

Thus, if both the ICANN GC and the registries believe something is out
of scope as defined by the contracts....then it is out of scope. The
fact that a constituency or the council discussed the issue and believes
it is in scope is not relevant.

If for whatever reason the ICANN GC takes one view, and the contracting
party takes the opposite view, then that dispute must be arbitrated by
an independent legal tribune (as set out in the contracts)...not the

In both cases, the view of the GNSO or constituencies on scope is not
relevant and should not be reflected in the main body of the report.

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & Business Development

NeuStar, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 2:19 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: PDPfeb06
Subject: Re: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Quick notes on current Draft final report


 From an objective point of view i see little difference between your
claim, not a fact but a claim of fact, that the PDP is out of scope
and the claim of the council and multiple constituencies that it is
in scope, except for the number for voices stating one and not the

Whether either of them is true fact, or juridical fact, is beyond our
ken at the moment and therefore I believe it is inappropriate to list
one group's opinion and not the others.

 From the chair's perspective I believe that fairness requires
listing both claims in the report.


On 7 mar 2007, at 14.06, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

My only point, and I will make it again, is that the TF can state
whatever it wants to state. I am just saying factually, it is
completely irrelevant that the Council, the Task Force or anyone else
debated the issue of scope and made any findings.....It has no bearing
on whether the PDP was in or out of scope.

That said, the current wording of the report in 1.7 is accurate. We
would oppose the addition of any other language in that section.
Putting in any language stating that other members discussed the
registry's objections and "found that the PDP was within scope"
would be
as inappropriate as saying elsewhere in the report (as an example),
that the "registry constituency" discussed the BC positions and "found
that the points made by the BC were not valid."

Both statements above are inappropriate.

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & Business Development

NeuStar, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 1:44 PM
To: 'Avri Doria'; 'Liz Williams'
Cc: 'PDPfeb06'
Subject: RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Quick notes on current Draft final

I support Avri's comments.

In particular, the members of the TF had numerous conversations about
concept in 1.7. I think we talked about language that was inclusive of
recognizing the concerns of others.... and read that into the meeting
record... I think staff will have captured the language from our
session. And that should be included in the report. First it is a more
balanced portrayal and we need to strive for that balance.

The objections of one constituency have been very very very well

Facts are our friend, after all. :-)


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 8:37 AM
To: Liz Williams
Cc: PDPfeb06
Subject: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Quick notes on current Draft final report


Thanks Liz for the report.  I have quickly gone through the first
part, though not the annexes in detail. Here are my notes.

1.3 - Not sure this is true.  as i read the rules, if the council has
appointed someone to the TF with a vote, they have a vote.  And in
fact it is an equal vote to the others on the the TF - not the
devalued vote as has been the practice in the TF. I do agree that
this was the process the TF worked under - which i believe was also a
valid process.

1.4 - The definition we used included noncom voters - strong support
= 4 or more  constituencies plus some nomcom support, support = 3
constituencies plus some nomcom support.

1.7 - I don't think this satisfies the requirement to indicate that
the rest of the constituencies and nomcom members did not accept the
RyC position.  Also I thought there was supposed to be a statement
indicating that the council had reinforced the validity of the TF and
its ToR after the RyC issue was originally raised.  The way this is
currently written, it looks like the RyC view predominated and the
rest of the TF just went through the motions as opposed to the fact
that the rest of the TF enthusiastically supported the validity of
the ToR.

1.8 - Not sure if the reference to interim chair is a hold over from
the past - replacement chair might be better reference.

1-9 - Not sure what value this table serves in the beginning of the
document when the ToR hasn't even been introduced yet.  Certainly a
useful annex.

2-1  I think it should use the language introduce earlier - i.e.
Strong support is 4+nomcom or more.  If we are going to use the
language of majority, would that not be super-majority for 1a1,2, 4a/
b, 5, 6  and majorityt 1a3, 3a1, and 3b1?

7-6 you still have a note: Add in "individual participant views".

In terms of the voting chart in the annex, the text of each of the
items being voted on should be included in the annex so that it makes
sense as a reference - it is difficult to tell what corresponds to
the explanations in the main part of the document.

thanks again


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy