ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[pdp-pcceg-feb06]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Quick notes on current Draft final report

  • To: "Ross Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Quick notes on current Draft final report
  • From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 15:29:04 -0500

The issue is that this whole PDP applies to "changes to the existing
contracts."   In most other PDPs dealing with general policy I hear what
you are saying Ross and agree that the two can be different.  However,
this PDP is so unique in that it only deals with changes to the existing
contracts.  

If they want to argue it is within the scope of the Bylaws, well that is
one thing and that is fine (although not really relevant when the
contracts are different than the Bylaws).  

But, what they discussed doing on the last call (and what has been
implied from the e-mails) is that they want to insert a paragraph
stating that the TF/GNSO discussed the registry's concerns (namely, that
the PDP was outside the scope of the PDP as defined in the contracts),
and decided that it was.  

That latter part is what we object to.   

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services  & Business Development 

NeuStar, Inc. 



-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 3:19 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: Avri Doria; PDPfeb06
Subject: Re: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Quick notes on current Draft final report


On 7-Mar-07, at 3:01 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> The reason our claim of scope is different than the opinion of the  
> Task
> Force or Council, is that we (the registries) have contracts with  
> ICANN
> that defined (in certain areas) the scope of Policy Development.

I think this is irrelevant. You are arguing whether or not the output  
of the task force qualifies as Policy Development activity under your  
contracts, I hear the other side arguing whether or not the output of  
this task force qualifies as Policy Development activity under  
ICANN's bylaws.

I think that the first condition can be false and the second  
condition can be true without either parties being wrong. If this is  
the case, then I'm not sure what the real issue is.


Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
t. 416.538.5492
c. 416.828.8783
http://www.domaindirect.com

"To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow."
- Erik Nupponen








<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy