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

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Jeff,

> 
> 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. 

Actually the contracts define "Consensus Policies" rather than Policy
Development.

The scope of policy development within ICANN can be broader than
"Consensus Policies" as defined in the contract.

Using the .biz agreement as an example, there are two criteria for
Consensus Policies:

""Consensus Policies" are those specifications or policies established
(1) pursuant to the procedure set forth in ICANN's Bylaws and due
process, AND (2) covering those topics listed in Section 3.1(b)(iv)
below".

I placed the AND in CAPs above.

The GNSO and task force are bound by the requirements of the bylaws.
Examples of ICANN policies that could be created include a policy to
launch new gTLDs.   This task force is operating in the context of those
bylaws.  

ICANN can create a policy that complies with the process in its bylaws.

For a new ICANN policy to apply to an existing registry contract, it
must meet the Consensus Policy definition in the registry contract.

In particular the new policy shall relate to one or more of the
following: 

(1) issues for which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably
necessary to facilitate interoperability, Security and/or Stability of
the Internet or DNS; 

(2) functional and performance specifications for the provision of
Registry Services (as defined in Section 3.1(d)(iii) below); 

(3) Security and Stability of the registry database for the TLD; 

(4) registry policies reasonably necessary to implement Consensus
Policies relating to registry operations or registrars; 

(5) resolution of disputes regarding the registration of domain names
(as opposed to the use of such domain names). 


I have described this distinction to the Council and this task force
numerous times, but the implications are subtle.  As part of the GNSO
improvements, providing clarity around the scope of the GNSO and the
ICANN bylaws, versus the limited ability of a new policy to impact the
practices of a registrar or registrar under an existing agreement could
certainly be made clearer.


Regards,
Bruce Tonkin