[pdp-pcceg-feb06] proposed note to Council

["Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>]

Jon, Mawaki, everyone,
as requested for clarity I propose this revision:
Our intent should be to secure the meaning of consensus policy not seek a 
(likely
unsuccessful attempt) to delay current contact negotiation.

"Dear Bruce,
During the Thursday, August 10th, 2006 PDP Feb 06 Task Force teleconference an 
issue of
concern was raised by some of the Task Force members, and I proposed to make 
you aware of it
by means of this memorandum, the purpose of which is to seek clarification from 
the Council
and request that you to communicate the contents of this memorandum to the 
ICANN Board.  

On behalf of the Task Force, I am requesting clarification on how our work 
relates to the
renewal process for gTLD contracts. The issue was raised in light of the 
renewal of the
three gTLD Registry agreements .biz, .info, and .org, as announced by ICANN 
staff on July
28, and which is concurrent with the Task Force's work to determine the policy 
issues around
renewal of existing agreements. Is it valid for the task force to set policy in 
parallel
with the work of the ICANN staff to move forward on renewals? This is a 
question for the
GNSO Council to consider.

The fundamental question is: If the TF's recommendations lead to consensus 
policy that
differs from contract wording will all current gTLDs contracts be changed 
retroactively as a
result?  
If the answer to that question is 'no', the validity of the Task Force, and 
more directly,
the GNSO as the policy development body is in question.

I should note that while the other members of the Task Force present shared 
these concerns,
there was an opinion expressed by the Registry Constituency representative that 
supported
the continuation of contract negotiation in parallel with the work of the Task 
Force.

Thank you for your consideration.  On behalf of the Task Force, I await your 
reply.

Kind regards,
Maureen"