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

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

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/