RE: [ga] RE: Has ICANN consulted the GAC about .biz/info/org?
- To: "'George Kirikos'" <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Vint Cerf'" <vint@xxxxxxxxxx>, <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <revised-biz-info-org-agreements@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [ga] RE: Has ICANN consulted the GAC about .biz/info/org?
- From: "Michael D. Palage" <Michael@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 20:21:48 -0500
While I share your appreciation of the nuances regarding ICANN bylaws
(inside joke to Vint and John), I must respectfully disagree with your
assessment that the ICANN Board must/should wait until San Paulo to make
a decision on these contracts. The basis for my position is that the
proposed contracts that Afilias, NeuStar and PIR are submitting are
almost identical to the following registry contracts that have been
executed with NO prior opposition from the GAC: .JOBS, .TRAVEL, .CAT,
.MOBI, .NET, .ASIA, and .TEL.
Now when the GAC or its individual members have public policy concerns
they are not afraid to make their voice(s) heard. I believe one needs to
look no further than ICM and their application for triple X.
Now given that almost every action that ICANN takes involves some aspect
of public policy, I fear that your proposal would cripple the
organization to only taking action three times a year after face to face
consultation with the GAC. That unfortunately is the logical
extension/application of our original proposal/thinking.
I think to date the Board has done a fairly reasonable job balancing its
fiduciary obligations to listen to all stakeholders (Supporting
Organizations, Advisory Committees, stakeholders, etc.) in making its
decisions, and why I think unless there is no formal objection from the
GAC, the Board is capable of making an informed decision on a very
thoroughly discussed set of contracts.
Michael D. Palage
P.S. - Usual disclosures apply regarding my relationship with various
registration authorities including Afilias (.INFO) which currently has a
contract pending before the ICANN Board.
From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of George Kirikos
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 10:16 AM
To: Vint Cerf; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
Subject: [ga] RE: Has ICANN consulted the GAC about .biz/info/org?
Thanks for the heads-up. Hopefully that will provide an opportunity to
consult with the GAC and receive their input.
--- Vint Cerf <vint@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The Nov 14 Board meeting has been postponed to Nov 22.
> Vinton G Cerf
> Chief Internet Evangelist
> Regus Suite 384
> 13800 Coppermine Road
> Herndon, VA 20171
> +1 703 234-1823
> +1 703-234-5822 (f)
> -----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?
> As at the time of this message, there is no agenda posted for the
> November 14, 2006 Board Meeting:
> Article III, Section 4 of the ICANN bylaws mentions:
> "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
> 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,
> "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,
> 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
> 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
> prices for consumers, given the much lower costs we've seen for
> hardware and bandwidth. Hopefully the GAC will be able to provide
> insights before the Sao Paulo meetings.
> George Kirikos