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

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Vint,

Thanks for the heads-up. Hopefully that will provide an opportunity to
consult with the GAC and receive their input.

Sincerely,

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

--- Vint Cerf <vint@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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/
> 
>