RE: Has ICANN consulted the GAC about .biz/info/org?

["Vint Cerf" <vint@xxxxxxxxxx>]

The Nov 14 Board meeting has been postponed to Nov 22. 


Vinton G Cerf
Chief Internet Evangelist
Google
Regus Suite 384
13800 Coppermine Road
Herndon, VA 20171
 
+1 703 234-1823
+1 703-234-5822 (f)
 
vint@xxxxxxxxxx
www.google.com
 

-----Original Message-----
From: George Kirikos [mailto:gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 1:47 AM
To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; revised-biz-info-org-agreements@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: john.jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx; vint@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Has ICANN consulted the GAC about .biz/info/org?

Hello,

As at the time of this message, there is no agenda posted for the November
14, 2006 Board Meeting:

http://www.icann.org/minutes/

Article III, Section 4 of the ICANN bylaws mentions:

http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm

"At least seven days in advance of each Board meeting (or if not
practicable, as far in advance as is practicable), a notice of such meeting
and, to the extent known, an agenda for the meeting shall be posted."

Given the lack of an agenda posted 7 days in advance, I presume no material
decisions will take place in that meeting, especially concerning the
proposed .biz/info/org contracts. This would also be consistent with Section
6, Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the bylaws,
namely:

"Where both practically feasible and consistent with the relevant policy
development process, an in-person public forum shall also be held for
discussion of any proposed policies as described in Section
6(1)(b) of this Article, prior to any final Board action."

i.e. ICANN should wait until the in-person meetings in Sao Paulo a few weeks
from now, as that would be practically feasible, and especially given that
there would be an "imposition of fees", as discussed in Section 6, Paragragh
1 of Article III.

Section 6, Paragraph 1.c also mentions that ICANN shall:

"in those cases where the policy action affects public policy concerns, to
request the opinion of the Governmental Advisory Committee and take duly
into account any advice timely presented by the Governmental Advisory
Committee on its own initiative or at the Board's request."

I've not seen anything posted by ICANN regarding GAC's opinion on the policy
concerns raised by these proposed contracts. Has the Board consulted the GAC
at all on this, to meet their requirements as per the ICANN Bylaws? If their
opinion has not yet been sought, this would be yet another reason to further
delay a decision on these proposed contracts.

My guess would be that the GAC would support competitive tender processes
for operation of the registries for fixed-length terms, like other standard
government contracts, with no presumptive renewal. This would lead to lower
prices for consumers, given the much lower costs we've seen for computer
hardware and bandwidth. Hopefully the GAC will be able to provide their
insights before the Sao Paulo meetings.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/