Re: [alac] Fwd: [council] Response from ICANN Board chair with regard to the proposed .biz, .info and .org agreements

[Denise Michel <denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx>]

Apparently, my email below did not go through.  I am re-sending it. I 
also thought the email you recently posted to the PDP 06 list relevant 
to this email thread and have included it as well.

Regards,
Denise

Denise Michel
Vice President, Policy Development
ICANN
denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx

Bret Fausett wrote:
>
> It's been apparent to me for some time that the interests of the 
public and
> the commercial interests of the registries diverge to such a degree 
on the
> items in this task force, even the scope of the task force, that it makes
> little sense to continue working on them together. Since we're never 
going
> to reach unanimity, I'm skeptical about the value of of continuing to 
debate
> procedure, scope, and substance on every point and in every meeting when
> it's apparent to everyone that the result of our work, whenever we 
conclude,
> will be two reports, one a majority report and another a minority 
report. I
> don't mean this as a slight to the registries, or anyone else, it's 
just an
> obvious fact that we're never going to reach agreement on a single set of
> recommendations.
>
> In light of this, I wonder whether we should simply split some of our 
next
> meetings so we're not taking each other's time debating points that 
will not
> be resolved.
>
>       Bret

> Bret,
>
> Setting aside your other assertions, which I take exception to, I feel
> compelled to address your statement that "ICANN Staff has purposefully
> impeded the  GNSO's work in recent days."  This is simply not true.
> It is unfair and incorrect to insinuate that the reason Task Force
> members have not reached agreement by Sao Paulo is lack of staff
> support or staff impediment.
>
> Since it was launched in Feb. 2006, the Policy staff has supported the
> GNSO's Contractual Conditions Task Force's (PDP '06) efforts to
> address their terms of reference and has attempted to help the Task
> Force comply with the PDP requirements.  Indeed, ICANN has supported a
> record-breaking number of meetings/conference calls for this task
> force (10 conference call meetings in October alone) and has provided
> the Task Force with the support requested by the Chair and agreed to
> by the Task Force.  I personally have participated in a majority of
> Task Force calls since I assumed my current position and responded
> directly (and on the record) to any question about the availability of
> resources to support the Task Force's work with a commitment to help
> ensure that all Task Force resource needs are met.  If you think there
> is something the Task Force asked Policy staff to do that was not
> done, please email me directly.  I am not aware of any unfulfilled
> request or impeding action on the part of Policy staff.
>
> The Task Force has a monumental task in addressing all of the complex
> and, in some cases, controversial topics included in this PDP.  I
> respect their efforts and they will continue to be fully supported by
> the Policy staff.
>
> Regards,
> Denise
>
> Denise Michel
> Vice President, Policy Development
> ICANN
> denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx


Bret Fausett wrote:
> This is vintage Vint. Here's the chronology....
>
> (a) The GNSO is so shocked and repulsed by the ICANN Staff's approval of 
> the .COM contract that it initiates a policy development process in 
> February, 2006 (PDP-Feb06) to formulate policy on things it thought it 
> could take for granted -- price caps, rebids on renewal.
>
> (b) Seeing the coming train, the registries for INFO, BIZ and ORG decide 
> that they need to get in and renegotiate their contracts before the PDP 
> comes down. ICANN Staff, obligingly, provides them the same treatment, 
> which is contrary to the coming policy advice from the GNSO.
>
> (c) One of the contracts, that for .ORG, was just awarded a couple of 
> years ago and doesn't expire until years down the road, and yet, we now 
> have an emergency renegotiation and term extension, before we've even 
> seen PIR carry out a substantial period of its initial award term.
>
> (d) Against a GNSO resolution that ICANN wait until the GNSO PDP 
> concludes -- and we've been working overtime to get it done ASAP -- Vint 
> now tells us that he is not constrained by our request to wait.
>
> (e) To add insult to the substantial injury ICANN will do to registrants 
> via these contracts, Vint now writes that the Board can disregard GNSO 
> advice, even on matters directly within the umbra of the GNSO's 
> authority, because it is simply one input into the Board.
>
> What makes it Vintage Vint is that, as ever, Vint knows best. He is the 
> father of the Internet and his paternalism knows no bounds. We ought to 
> simply dispense with the advisory committees and supporting 
> organizations because, at the end of the day, Vint will simply do what 
> he knows is the best thing.
>
>            Bret
>
> P.S. To make matters worse, ICANN Staff has purposefully impeded the 
> GNSO's work in recent days in an effort to say that we're not on track 
> for Sao Paulo. In concert, the registries have filibustered our 
> conference calls in an attempt to delay our work.