August 2006 - council - lists.icann.org

Cross Posting
by Philip Sheppard 23 Aug '06

23 Aug '06

Council members, you will all have suffered recently with cross-postings of e-mails sent to both Council and the various PDP lists. For those of you with long memories there is an existing rule against this practise. Although the language needs updating the intent is clear: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/cross-posting.shtml I request the GNSO secretariat implements this rule such that a cross-posted e-mail is not delivered. Council members who wish to be observers can always opt-in to ANY Council list. Opting in is a privilege: opting out is a problem! Many thanks for your understanding. Philip

1 0

New directory "Correspondence and Presentations"
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 22 Aug '06

22 Aug '06

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: gnso-dow123[at]gnso.icann.org] Please see the new directory "Correspondence and Presentations" http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/ in the left hand side menu on page: http://gnso.icann.org/ More material has to be added, but please let me know if you have any input. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: [gtld-council] GNSO PDP Dec 05: Amsterdam Materials
by Mawaki Chango 20 Aug '06

20 Aug '06

Liz, Thanks for providing us with so much homework ;) and thanks for making the hard copies available (having problems with my laptop these days, and not sure whether I'll bring it over). Best, Mawaki --- Liz Williams <liz.williams(a)icann.org> wrote: > Colleagues > > In preparation for the upcoming Amsterdam meeting I urge you all to > > review the materials I have attached as they will help you with > your > preparation. I also urge you to share these materials with your > constituencies. Please note, in particular, the references to the > > public comments and other materials which have been posted since > the > release of the Initial Report. > > If you wish to use the Shinkuro room facility, please ensure that I > > have received your user name (if you've changed computers, you'll > need to log on with a new user name, send it to me and I will > update > your invitation). The materials attached here will also be loaded > > into the Shinkuro room. Printed copies of the materials will be > available so you don't have to carry large mounds of paper with > you. > > It is possible to participate by conference call -- those details > will be sent out separately by the GNSO Secretariat. > > A draft agenda, which will be confirmed at the beginning of the > meeting, will be circulated early next week. > > Kind regards and, of course, if you have any last minute questions > > either email me or give me a call. > > Liz > ..................................................... > > Liz Williams > Senior Policy Counselor > ICANN - Brussels > +32 2 234 7874 tel > +32 2 234 7848 fax > +32 497 07 4243 mob > > > > ï¿¼ >

1 0

Preparation for the Amsterdam meeting - useful background reading
by Olof Nordling 18 Aug '06

18 Aug '06

Dear all, At the latest Council conference call, I mentioned the previous IDN Committee (sometimes called the "Katoh-san" Committee after its chair). More about that committee is found at http://www.icann.org/committees/idn/ - Its final report and ancillary documents are useful background reading in preparation for the Amsterdam meeting at the end of this month, where we also plan to present an overview of the committee's findings. Very best regards Olof

2 1

[Fwd: Proposed Bylaws Amendment]
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 18 Aug '06

18 Aug '06

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please see a posting the Chair of the Registrar constituency, Jonathon Nevett, has requested be passed on to the Council regarding Proposed Bylaws Amendment. The attached word document is in plain text below and the marked up text in the document has been put in square brackets [] Kind regards, Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org ......................................................................... One year ago today, the GNSO passed a resolution recommending that the Board adopt the attached changes to the Bylaws. The recommendations were promptly forwarded to the Board for consideration. The proposed changes make it explicit that contracts that “substantially affect the operation of the Internet or third parties;” and contracts that have “a material impact on a third party member of the Internet Community” would have to be published for public comment prior to execution by ICANN. This does not include every contract that ICANN signs, rather a limited subset of the universe. Please recall that this request came in response to ICANN’s failure to post the final .net registry agreement for public comment prior to its execution. When asked about this occurrence in Luxembourg, the General Counsel stated that he had received advice from outside counsel that there wasn’t a */requirement/* that ICANN post the agreement for comment prior to its execution. While many of us disagree with that interpretation, we proposed the attached Bylaws amendment to make it clear that such a requirement does, indeed, exist. The following is an excerpt from the minutes from the 8/18/05 GNSO meeting: ** “John Jeffrey** commented from a staff perspective it was understood that the recommendation concerned issues that were raised in Luxembourg and were being presently articulated. Marilyn Cade's proposed change to the language was important and there was also some question regarding whether the scope of the language on which contracts would be included in such process was concise enough. John Jeffrey went on to say that clearly input from the Council was appreciated and that the Board should consider the recommendation but passing on specific language would not be appropriate at this early stage given that the Board would need to consider the input, and any Bylaw change would require a public comment period before it could be approved.” http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18aug05.shtml Has the Board considered the recommendation in the past year? What has caused the delay? Will the recommendation be sent for public comment? I urge the GNSO and the Board to take action on this important issue. Thanks. Jon Nevett Network Solutions Attached word document: ICANN-bylaw change-ensure ARTICLE III: TRANSPARENCY Section 6. NOTICE AND COMMENT ON POLICY ACTIONS [AND CONTRACT APPROVALS] 1. With respect to any policies [or contracts] that are being considered by the Board for adoption [or approval] that substantially affect the operation of the Internet or third parties, including the imposition of any fees or charges, ICANN shall: a. provide public notice on the Website explaining what policies or contracts are being considered for adoption or approval and why, at least twenty-one days (and if practical, earlier) prior to any action by the Board; b. provide a reasonable opportunity for parties to comment on the adoption of the proposed policies [or approval of the proposed contracts,] to see the comments of others, and to reply to those comments, prior to any action by the Board; and c. in those cases where the policy action [or contract] 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. [d. In those cases where the policy action or contract affects public policy concerns, notify the relevant Supporting Organization’s policy council and take into account any advice presented by said Council on its its own initiative or at the Board’s request.] 2. 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. 3. After taking action on any policy [or contract] subject to this Section, the Board shall publish in the meeting minutes the reasons for any action taken, the vote of each Director voting on the action, and the separate statement of any Director desiring publication of such a statement. ARTICLE XV: GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 1. CONTRACTS [Consistent with ICANN’s transparency principles in Article III, the Board must approve all of ICANN’s material contracts in advance of execution.] The Board may authorize any Officer or Officers, agent or agents, to enter into any contract or execute or deliver any instrument in the name of and on behalf of ICANN, and such authority may be general or confined to specific instances. In the absence of a contrary Board authorization, contracts and instruments may only be executed by the following Officers: President, any Vice President, or the CFO. Unless authorized or ratified by the Board, no other Officer, agent, or employee shall have any power or authority to bind ICANN or to render it liable for any debts or obligations. [Before ICANN enters into or approves a contract that may have a material impact on a third party member of the Internet community, such contract must be published for public comment in final form and in its entirety (only information constituting trade secrets may be excluded when necessary) for at least 21 days before the Board can approve the contract for execution.]

2 1

Update on GNSO Review by the London School of Economics
by Bruce Tonkin 13 Aug '06

13 Aug '06

Dear Vint and Bruce, I hope that it might be helpful to provide you with an update on the current status of the LSE Public Policy Group's review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization. We have taken somewhat more time on the report than originally envisaged because of the need for iterations in surfacing some relevant data from GNSO constituencies and the need for some extra work in developing detailed, implementable recommendations for the ICANN community. On approximately 21 August, we will provide the final draft version of the report for review by representatives designated by each GNSO constituency. The purpose of this limited review is to enable the constituencies to let us know of any specific factual corrections that they believe are necessary, as well as any comments or elaborations which they would wish us to examine. The LSE team will carefully consider all suggested changes before providing the Board with a final, public version of the report, which we envisage will occur within two further weeks of work. Upon submission of our final report, we look forward to explaining and discussing the review with the Board, the GNSO Council, and relevant ICANN audiences. Best wishes, Patrick Dunleavy Professor Patrick Dunleavy Chair, LSE Public Policy Group Professor of Political Science and Public Policy London School of Economics and Political Science

1 0

Implementation of procedure on national laws vs Whois - solliciting views from SOs and ACs
by Bruce Tonkin 12 Aug '06

12 Aug '06

August 2006 To Chairpersons of ICANN Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees: On 10 May 2006, the ICANN Board adopted a resolution to, "implement a GNSO recommendation on a procedure for handling potential conflicts between Whois requirements and national privacy laws." (See, http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-10may06.htm). The resolution and background information are provided in the attached document. ICANN staff is currently planning the implementation phase as requested by the Board. In this process, the Board has directed staff "to develop and publicly document a procedure for dealing with such conflicts, taking into account the advice of the GNSO and any other interested ICANN Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee". (The advice received to date from the GNSO is found in the attachment.) Please consult with your organization about this matter and provide to ICANN staff any advice your organization may wish to submit concerning this issue. You may send the information directly to me at <pritz(a)icann.org>. ICANN staff pan to commence implementation two month from now; responses received by then will receive full consideration. Responses received after one month will be accommodated in the implementation in everyway possible and staff will work with the ICANN community in the future to assess effectiveness and discuss changes if needed. For committees/organisations where providing feedback in the two-month timeframe is difficult, ICANN staff will offer to facilitate responses through one-on-one contacts with interested committee/organisation members. Please write with any questions or concerns you may have in responding to this letter. Thank you in advance for your attention in this matter. Sincerely, Kurt Kurt Pritz ICANN 4676 Admiralty Way, #330 Marina del Rey, California USA

1 0

RE: [council] RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] FW: PDP Feb 06: Draft Agenda 10 August
by Marilyn Cade 10 Aug '06

10 Aug '06

DEAR John Interesting response Not responsive. It doesn't matter that discussions started on 'date x, if the policy development process covers A through Z. The participants in processes of c, T and Y' should understand that they are going to be affected by policy process of z. You seem to be advising me, as an ICANN stakeholder, BC policy rep, and GNSO Councilor, that I have no standing, since ICANN has decided to adv ace registry agreement, OUTSIDE of pending policy advice. This doesn't compute. The GNSO is responsible for policy for gTLDS. There is an official policy process. Somehow there is a staff negotiation that ignores the existence of a policy process of relevance. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM. Now, how could that be? We need to align the policy process with decisions of ICANN. IF the ICANN staff are suggesting that the bottom up, policy process of ICANN SHOULD BE IGNORED, let's address that now. and if not,then let's just get back to work and support the PDP process of the gnso. we can debate this on the tf call tomorrow. Marilyn _____ From: John Jeffrey [mailto:john.jeffrey@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 7:33 PM To: Marilyn Cade; Cubberley, Maureen ((CHT)); pdp-pcceg-feb06(a)gnso.icann.org; Council GNSO Cc: Denise Michel Subject: Re: [council] RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] FW: PDP Feb 06: Draft Agenda 10 August Marilyn, Councilors and TF Members, Thanks for raising the important issues addressed in your email earlier today. I have reviewed your comments regarding the relationship between the BIZ, .INFO and .ORG agreements and the pdp feb 06 and just wanted to add some additional facts and points of consideration for additional consideration and clarity around these topics. It is important to note that both the .BIZ, .INFO and .ORG discussions are scheduled to be in the stages proceeding their expiration (for .BIZ and INFO next year), and that the posting of the agreements follow on from a process that started in mid-2005 following the introduction of the revised registry agreement form in the sTLD discussions and following the introduction of the revised 2005 version of the .NET Agreement. These discussions started well in advance of the idea for the contractual conditions pdp launched during the revised .COM agreement public comment process. It is also important to note that we have continued in negotiating and finalizing the sTLD agreements during this time, as well. The proposed terms on the .BIZ, .INFO and .ORG agreements were posted for public information 5 weeks ago, so I am a bit surprised that we are only now hearing of your concern. Additionally, the TF and the GNSO have been aware of the negotiations relating to these agreements for quite some time. The expriation of these gTLD agreements (and the expiration of the .BIZ and INFO agreements in particular) have been discussed in various forums and the terms of all gTLD agreements remain publicly available. I am informed that there has been a long running discussion dating back to the beginning of ICANN and that there is a disparity of opinion regarding the relationship between the policy issues and specific contractual agreements. It is also my understanding that the issues being discussed in the current pdp are unlikely to be resolved in a time frame that would permit such policies or advice as might arise from this pdp to impact a negotiation on these particular agreements. In following the work of the task force it appears that it will be difficult to reach a consensus, and if such consensus were to emerge, the policy or advice must then be reviewed and approved by the board, and then implemented by staff. I assume that there will continue to be pdp's in the GNSO that will impact the various gTLD agreements (like those that have been approved and those that have been pending for some time), and we cannot wait until all potential policy or advice from such pdp's is concluded on all possible issues before we negotiate agreements. Based upon all of the above and the comments that I made at the onset of this pdp, it is my opinion that the scope of this pdp should not seek to place limitations on the negotiations of specific agreements. Also, I would also caution, once again, against the use of a pdp process to impact specific agreements. The appropriate process to raise concerns about the posted agreements is the current public comment process for those agreements. best regards, John Jeffrey General Counsel & Secretary ICANN On Aug 9, 2006, at 1:27 PM, Marilyn Cade wrote: I raised a topic on the Council call last week and believe it should also be noted in the minutes of the TF meeting tomorrow as an issue of concern. I'll preview it here for the TF members, and have copied Council, since not all Councilors are on the TF. IF the GNSO Council is responsible for developing policy for GTLDS, then we really have to have an understanding that there will be consultation between the GNSO Council and the ICANN staff when there is urgent need for policy development. Several constituencies raised the issue with ICANN senior management and the Board regarding the .com situation that we expected to be advised by ICANN if we need to fast track policy. I find myself disappointed, and concerned, to see that we seem to have an apparent disconnect between activities related to drafting and proposing new versions of existing registry agreements as posted by the ICANN General Council and the work of the TF PDP 06. Since there is a policy development process underway, approved by consensus vote of the GNSO Council, directly relevant to policies in existing contracts with registries, I believe that registry agreements should be redrafted only after the conclusion of the PDP and following its recommendations. I am concerned to see a posting of three registry agreements, one of which does not lapse until 2009, without any acknowledgement of the pending work of the GNSO Council. I note that ICANN staff mentioned on the Council call that these negotiations were undertaken at the request of the registry operators, and I am sure that is the case. That isn't the relevant point. The relevant point is that there is policy development underway that is directly applicable. I raised this concern on the GNSO Council call last week, and will post further to Council regarding Council's position on its role in developing and determining GNSO policy which is then recommended to the Board. Ignoring Council's role essentially means that our work and indeed our role is irrelevant to ICANN. I find it hard to believe, as I review the strong endorsement given by ICANN's senior management to the importance of bottom up policy development, that that would be intentional outcome of any activities presently underway. However, it can be an unintentional, and harmful outcome. I believe that Council must address the topic and raise the concern to the Board and the Senior Staff, awareness of the direct linkage of this policy development process to the recently posted revised registry agreements. I support the Chair's proposal that we need to commit to a published timeline that achieves the needed, and detailed and complex work in the time we have between now and San Paulo. I am concerned to see the face to face meeting moved into October. If that is the best we can do, then we need to accomplish work in the meantime via conf. call working sessions. For the TF, we are going to have to meet more often, via conf. call, and then face to face. Overall, we need to get this TF on a regular working schedule. If we look at how frequently we have met, we see broad gaps. That may signify that we need additional resources, and so tomorrow, I suggest that we give consideration to recommending retention of not only independent experts, but also possibly additional consulting resources to augment existing staff resources. That may be the most practical approach to ensuring that this important policy area is completed by the end of '06, as originally conceptualized. We can then expect ICANN to advise us quickly of resource availability to achieve the needed support to the TF. Marilyn Cade BC TF member/GNSO Councilor P.S. I do have edits and suggestions for the draft report, but will do those in marked up version for posting separately, after the call. _____ From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@icann.org] On Behalf Of Cubberley, Maureen (CHT) Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 3:16 PM To: pdp-pcceg-feb06(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] FW: PDP Feb 06: Draft Agenda 10 August Hello All, Draft agenda for Thursday's telecon is attached. Thanks to everyone for creating time for this teleconference. I realize that the timing is inconvenient for many of the task force members, and I do appreciate your effort to participate. I look forward to our meeting on Thursday. Best regards, Maureen. Maureen Cubberley, Director Public Library Services Branch Department of Culture Heritage and Tourism 204-726-6864 <mailto:mcubberley@gov.mb.ca> mcubberley(a)gov.mb.ca John Jeffrey john.jeffrey(a)icann.org

2 3

RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] FW: PDP Feb 06: Draft Agenda 10 August
by Alistair DIXON 10 Aug '06

10 Aug '06

I would like to add my voice in support of Marilyn's comments in her email below. The current situation of staff renogiating registry contracts, apparently independently of the PDP06 work is entirely unsatisfactory. These negotiations are in effect policy making on the fly and risk setting precedents for the PDP06 work without any apparent regard to good policy making principles. I therefore agree with Marilyn that the best course would be for these negotiations to be put on hold until the PDP06 work is complete. This is a reasonable course of action to take as none of these agreements are due to expire this year. With concentrated effort, appropriate resources and assistance and good will there is no reason why this work cannot be completed in time to allow for adequate time for the conclusion of these negotiations before the agreements expire. As Marilyn says, these negotiations mean that the PDP06 work becomes a high priority. I think the task force needs the assistance of independent experts and appropriate consulting resources to work through some of the tricky policy issues confronting us. Such additional resources are critical for ensuring that the work can be completed quickly. Regarding independent experts, some task force members have argued that they would be able to provide the apropriate expertise. While I would add myself to this list in the areas of anti-trust and resource allocation since these matters are my day job, I along with everybody else on the task force will be representing my constituency in this work. As a result, while I may respresent my views as the objective opinion of an expert in a particular field, I would not expect other constituencies to agree that my views are objective because I represent a particular constituency. I don't believe the situation is any different for other task force members. An independent expert or experts that do not have a particular barrow to push will be of great assistance in helping us resolve the difficult policy issues confronting this task force in a timely way. Identifying appropriate independent experts should be a priority. Finally, I am not able to join the call tonight because it starts at 2am my time and I do have a day job. I know that I live in a difficult time zone compared with most of the planet's population but I would appreciate more consideration when setting meeting times in future. I already have to deal with council calls running from midnight to 2am so I do not think it unreasonable to ask that neither council nor taskforce calls are scheduled between the hours of 2 and 5am for any council or task force member. I accept that this is not possible for face-to-face meetings. Best regards Alistair Alistair Dixon Industry and Regulatory Affairs Ph +64 4 920 3098 (Wellington) Telstra Clear Ltd Ph +64 29 912 4301 (mobile) PO Box 1271 Ph +64 9 912 4301 (Auckland) Centreport Fax +64 4 920 3588 Wellington alistair.dixon(a)team.telstraclear.co.nz -----Original Message----- From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@icann.org]On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Thursday, 10 August 2006 08:28 To: 'Cubberley, Maureen (CHT)'; pdp-pcceg-feb06(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: 'Council GNSO'; 'John Jeffrey'; denise.michel(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] FW: PDP Feb 06: Draft Agenda 10 August I raised a topic on the Council call last week and believe it should also be noted in the minutes of the TF meeting tomorrow as an issue of concern. I'll preview it here for the TF members, and have copied Council, since not all Councilors are on the TF. IF the GNSO Council is responsible for developing policy for GTLDS, then we really have to have an understanding that there will be consultation between the GNSO Council and the ICANN staff when there is urgent need for policy development. Several constituencies raised the issue with ICANN senior management and the Board regarding the .com situation that we expected to be advised by ICANN if we need to fast track policy. I find myself disappointed, and concerned, to see that we seem to have an apparent disconnect between activities related to drafting and proposing new versions of existing registry agreements as posted by the ICANN General Council and the work of the TF PDP 06. Since there is a policy development process underway, approved by consensus vote of the GNSO Council, directly relevant to policies in existing contracts with registries, I believe that registry agreements should be redrafted only after the conclusion of the PDP and following its recommendations. I am concerned to see a posting of three registry agreements, one of which does not lapse until 2009, without any acknowledgement of the pending work of the GNSO Council. I note that ICANN staff mentioned on the Council call that these negotiations were undertaken at the request of the registry operators, and I am sure that is the case. That isn't the relevant point. The relevant point is that there is policy development underway that is directly applicable. I raised this concern on the GNSO Council call last week, and will post further to Council regarding Council's position on its role in developing and determining GNSO policy which is then recommended to the Board. Ignoring Council's role essentially means that our work and indeed our role is irrelevant to ICANN. I find it hard to believe, as I review the strong endorsement given by ICANN's senior management to the importance of bottom up policy development, that that would be intentional outcome of any activities presently underway. However, it can be an unintentional, and harmful outcome. I believe that Council must address the topic and raise the concern to the Board and the Senior Staff, awareness of the direct linkage of this policy development process to the recently posted revised registry agreements. I support the Chair's proposal that we need to commit to a published timeline that achieves the needed, and detailed and complex work in the time we have between now and San Paulo. I am concerned to see the face to face meeting moved into October. If that is the best we can do, then we need to accomplish work in the meantime via conf. call working sessions. For the TF, we are going to have to meet more often, via conf. call, and then face to face. Overall, we need to get this TF on a regular working schedule. If we look at how frequently we have met, we see broad gaps. That may signify that we need additional resources, and so tomorrow, I suggest that we give consideration to recommending retention of not only independent experts, but also possibly additional consulting resources to augment existing staff resources. That may be the most practical approach to ensuring that this important policy area is completed by the end of '06, as originally conceptualized. We can then expect ICANN to advise us quickly of resource availability to achieve the needed support to the TF. Marilyn Cade BC TF member/GNSO Councilor P.S. I do have edits and suggestions for the draft report, but will do those in marked up version for posting separately, after the call. _____ From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@icann.org] On Behalf Of Cubberley, Maureen (CHT) Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 3:16 PM To: pdp-pcceg-feb06(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] FW: PDP Feb 06: Draft Agenda 10 August Hello All, Draft agenda for Thursday's telecon is attached. Thanks to everyone for creating time for this teleconference. I realize that the timing is inconvenient for many of the task force members, and I do appreciate your effort to participate. I look forward to our meeting on Thursday. Best regards, Maureen. Maureen Cubberley, Director Public Library Services Branch Department of Culture Heritage and Tourism 204-726-6864 mcubberley(a)gov.mb.ca

1 0

RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] FW: PDP Feb 06: Draft Agenda 10 August
by Marilyn Cade 09 Aug '06

09 Aug '06

I raised a topic on the Council call last week and believe it should also be noted in the minutes of the TF meeting tomorrow as an issue of concern. I'll preview it here for the TF members, and have copied Council, since not all Councilors are on the TF. IF the GNSO Council is responsible for developing policy for GTLDS, then we really have to have an understanding that there will be consultation between the GNSO Council and the ICANN staff when there is urgent need for policy development. Several constituencies raised the issue with ICANN senior management and the Board regarding the .com situation that we expected to be advised by ICANN if we need to fast track policy. I find myself disappointed, and concerned, to see that we seem to have an apparent disconnect between activities related to drafting and proposing new versions of existing registry agreements as posted by the ICANN General Council and the work of the TF PDP 06. Since there is a policy development process underway, approved by consensus vote of the GNSO Council, directly relevant to policies in existing contracts with registries, I believe that registry agreements should be redrafted only after the conclusion of the PDP and following its recommendations. I am concerned to see a posting of three registry agreements, one of which does not lapse until 2009, without any acknowledgement of the pending work of the GNSO Council. I note that ICANN staff mentioned on the Council call that these negotiations were undertaken at the request of the registry operators, and I am sure that is the case. That isn't the relevant point. The relevant point is that there is policy development underway that is directly applicable. I raised this concern on the GNSO Council call last week, and will post further to Council regarding Council's position on its role in developing and determining GNSO policy which is then recommended to the Board. Ignoring Council's role essentially means that our work and indeed our role is irrelevant to ICANN. I find it hard to believe, as I review the strong endorsement given by ICANN's senior management to the importance of bottom up policy development, that that would be intentional outcome of any activities presently underway. However, it can be an unintentional, and harmful outcome. I believe that Council must address the topic and raise the concern to the Board and the Senior Staff, awareness of the direct linkage of this policy development process to the recently posted revised registry agreements. I support the Chair's proposal that we need to commit to a published timeline that achieves the needed, and detailed and complex work in the time we have between now and San Paulo. I am concerned to see the face to face meeting moved into October. If that is the best we can do, then we need to accomplish work in the meantime via conf. call working sessions. For the TF, we are going to have to meet more often, via conf. call, and then face to face. Overall, we need to get this TF on a regular working schedule. If we look at how frequently we have met, we see broad gaps. That may signify that we need additional resources, and so tomorrow, I suggest that we give consideration to recommending retention of not only independent experts, but also possibly additional consulting resources to augment existing staff resources. That may be the most practical approach to ensuring that this important policy area is completed by the end of '06, as originally conceptualized. We can then expect ICANN to advise us quickly of resource availability to achieve the needed support to the TF. Marilyn Cade BC TF member/GNSO Councilor P.S. I do have edits and suggestions for the draft report, but will do those in marked up version for posting separately, after the call. _____ From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@icann.org] On Behalf Of Cubberley, Maureen (CHT) Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 3:16 PM To: pdp-pcceg-feb06(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] FW: PDP Feb 06: Draft Agenda 10 August Hello All, Draft agenda for Thursday's telecon is attached. Thanks to everyone for creating time for this teleconference. I realize that the timing is inconvenient for many of the task force members, and I do appreciate your effort to participate. I look forward to our meeting on Thursday. Best regards, Maureen. Maureen Cubberley, Director Public Library Services Branch Department of Culture Heritage and Tourism 204-726-6864 mcubberley(a)gov.mb.ca

1 0