RE: [ga] RE: Has ICANN consulted the GAC about .biz/info/org?
- To: "Michael D. Palage" <Michael@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'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: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 19:12:58 -0800 (PST)
--- "Michael D. Palage" <Michael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> While I share your appreciation of the nuances regarding ICANN bylaws
> (inside joke to Vint and John), I must respectfully disagree with
> assessment that the ICANN Board must/should wait until San Paulo to
> 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.
.jobs, .travel, .cat, .mobi, .asia and .tel are all SPONSORED gTLDs.
ICANN was widely mocked for its .net "negotiation". .biz/info/org are
all UNSPONSORED gTLDs for which different standards apply. Check. :)
Those unsponsored gTLD agreements also permit differential pricing
(since the sponsoring organizations have unrestricted rule making
ability in that regard. That unfortunately is the logical
extension/application of your line of thinking, if we are to assume
that sponsored and unsponsored gTLDs should be treated the same. I'm
sure you are not proposing that. Check. :)
> Now when the GAC or its individual members have public policy
> they are not afraid to make their voice(s) heard. I believe one needs
> look no further than ICM and their application for triple X.
ICM's .xxx was mentioned at multiple live public board meetings, and
thus brought to the attention of the GAC. To my knowledge, these
contracts have not. Check. :)
> Now given that almost every action that ICANN takes involves some
> of public policy, I fear that your proposal would cripple the
> organization to only taking action three times a year after face to
> consultation with the GAC. That unfortunately is the logical
> extension/application of our original proposal/thinking.
I'm glad you agree with me that these contracts likely involve some
aspect of "public policy", and thus that the relevant bylaws do apply.
Checkmate. :) The GAC should be heard.
> I think to date the Board has done a fairly reasonable job balancing
> 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
> GAC, the Board is capable of making an informed decision on a very
> thoroughly discussed set of contracts.
I'd beg to disagree. This is the same Board that approved the .com
proposed settlement that you're talking about, isn't it? HAHAHAHAHAHA.
If you'd like to rewrite the Bylaws, feel free to propose amendments.
But, the Board opens themselves up to a possible challenge of the
contracts should they be approved while flouting Bylaws. It's
procedures and rules that separate us from the savages. The next live
meeting is only a few short weeks away. There's no rush. Certainly the
GAC has time to make some comments, and read the comments of the public
on these important matters.
Only 99.5%+ of comments were against these contracts. Obviously a
"legitimate" ICANN Board would be against these contracts too, if they
represent the "bottom up consensus driven ICANN". An extra few weeks
might give the registries time to raise their level of public support
from 0.5% to maybe 10% or 15%. And I hear in Florida, that's sometimes
good enough to win an election, when one has a sympathetic Supreme