Grant:


I'm rather dismayed to see this position formulated at this point. 
During our discussions leading up to the approval of the PDP, the
Registry Constituency representatives specifically requested some
flexibility to make changes to the Terms of Reference after the call,
but other council members (including, I believe, at least one
representative of the Business Constituency) were quite adamant that
there had been adequate time to review the terms of reference and that
no further changes should be made.  Indeed, I believe the council
explicitly voted AGAINST a proposal that the PDP be initiated, but
with the terms of reference subject to change.  It seems inappropriate
for a constituency whose representatives unanimously voted against the
motion to allow that flexibility to suddenly request changes,
especially when even the public comment period has expired.


Jordyn


On Jan 8, 2004, at 3:27 PM, Grant Forsyth wrote:


<excerpt><fontfamily><param>Arial</param><color><param>0000,0000,FFFF</param><smaller>Dear
Bruce , fellow Councillors and Barbara</smaller></color></fontfamily>

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><color><param>0000,0000,FFFF</param><smaller>RE:
Terms of Reference for Task Force on:</smaller></color></fontfamily>

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><color><param>0000,0000,FFFF</param><smaller>Procedure
for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related
contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture or
operation of a gTLD registry.</smaller></color></fontfamily>

 

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><color><param>0000,0000,FFFF</param><smaller>While
we, the elected representatives of the Commercial and Business Users
Constituency (BC), recognise that the Draft TOR  were agreed by
Council on 2 December 2003 and have been put out for public
consideration and that submissions closed on 28 December 2003, due to
the holiday period the job of developing the BC initial position on
the matter has only now  brought to light an undesirable "narrowness"
of the TOR.</smaller></color></fontfamily>

 

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><color><param>0000,0000,FFFF</param><smaller>Specifically
we consider that two of of the three aspects recommended to be
considered "Out of Scope"  should be included in the PDP
consideration, namely:</smaller></color></fontfamily>

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><color><param>0000,0000,FFFF</param><smaller>A)
Changes to the nature of the agreements between ICANN and the registry
operators</smaller></color></fontfamily>

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><color><param>0000,0000,FFFF</param><smaller>B)
Additional obligations on registry operators or gTLD sponsors beyond
what is already specified in their existing agreements</smaller></color></fontfamily>

 

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><color><param>0000,0000,FFFF</param><smaller>We
would note that the PDP under consideration is not focused on any
particular registry service, action, change in architecture or
operation, but rather on developing a procedure for consideration of
any such change. For such a procedure to have maximum usefulness it:</smaller></color></fontfamily>

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><color><param>0000,0000,FFFF</param><smaller>- should
not embody any issue specific constraint (such as potential changes
that might also be considered in the future policy development
associated with the review of new gTLDs (out of scope A); and</smaller></color></fontfamily>

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><color><param>0000,0000,FFFF</param><smaller>-
must be flexible and forward looking such that the procedure can deal
with changes in circumstances, markets or technology innovation not
previously foreseen and explicitly captured in wording of existing
contracts (out of scope B)</smaller></color></fontfamily>

 

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><color><param>0000,0000,FFFF</param><smaller>We
do not envisage the removal of these current "Out-of-scope"
constraints to have any great impact on the PDP process,
the complexity of response to the identified four main tasks  or the
final overall policy recommendation. In fact, seeking to embody the
current out-of-scope constraints is likely to lead to a more
convoluted procedure.</smaller></color></fontfamily>

 

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><color><param>0000,0000,FFFF</param><smaller>Hence,
we seek an amendment to the current draft of the TOR by the removal of
the first two "Out-of-scope" constraints.</smaller></color></fontfamily>

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><color><param>0000,0000,FFFF</param><smaller>AND</smaller></color></fontfamily>

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><color><param>0000,0000,FFFF</param><smaller>We
erquest that this matter be included on the agenda of the next GNSO
call, scheduled for 22 January.</smaller></color></fontfamily>

 

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><color><param>0000,0000,FFFF</param><smaller>Sincerely</smaller></color></fontfamily>

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><color><param>0000,0000,FFFF</param><smaller>Elected
representatives of the BC</smaller></color></fontfamily>

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><color><param>0000,0000,FFFF</param><smaller>Grant
Forsyth</smaller></color></fontfamily>

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><color><param>0000,0000,FFFF</param><smaller>Marilyn
Cade</smaller></color></fontfamily>

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><color><param>0000,0000,FFFF</param><smaller>Philip
Sheppard</smaller></color></fontfamily>

</excerpt>