Thanks Bruce. If we could add then in the first part the words "CONSISTENT WITH ICANN's BYLAWS INCLUDING ITS CORE VALUES", although I agree may not be "necessary", but may make the motion more palatable to some in the ICANN community. Your definition of Registry Services is from the new TLD Agreements (biz, info, pro, name, etc.). However, VeriSign was able to negotiate a different definition its .com and .net agreements. Some have argued that these differences are significant. Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 10:37 PM To: Neuman, Jeff; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: try-planning@nic.museum Subject: RE: [council] Notice of motion Hello Jeff,
"The GNSO Council requests that the Staff Manager produce an Issues Report on the need for a predictable procedure, CONSISTENT WITH ICANN's CORE VALUES OF PRESERVING OPERATIONAL STABILITY, RELIABILITY, SECURITY, AND GLOBAL INTEROPERABILITY OF THE INTERNET, AND THE PROMOTION OF A COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT, for the introduction of new "Registry Services," AS DEFINED BY THE RELEVANT CONTRACTS WITH THE GTLD REGISTRIES, by October 27, 2003 for consideration at the [INSERT NOVEMBER COUNCIL MEETING]".
With regard to adding text about core values, I think that is unnecessary because the issues report as defined in the bylaws must include a statement from the ICANN General Counsel: "In determining whether the issue is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process, the General Counsel shall examine whether such issue: 1. is within the scope of ICANN's mission statement; 2. is broadly applicable to multiple situations or organizations; 3. is likely to have lasting value or applicability, albeit with the need for occasional updates; 4. will establish a guide or framework for future decision-making; or 5. implicates or affects an existing ICANN policy." You have also not mentioned all the ICANN core values in Article 1 of the ICANN bylaws (there are 11 of them). Might be better to just say consistent with ICANN's mission and core values as defined in the ICANN bylaws. You suggested text to clarify the definition of Registry services seems reasonable. I note from the generic tld agreement that Registry Services is defined as: "Registry Services" means services provided as an integral part of the operation of the Registry TLD, including all subdomains in which Registered Names are registered. In determining whether a service is integral to the operation of the Registry TLD, consideration will be given to the extent to which the Registry Operator has been materially advantaged in providing the service by its designation as such under this Agreement. The development of technology, expertise, systems, efficient operations, reputation (including identification as Registry Operator), financial strength, or relationships with registrars and third parties shall not be deemed an advantage arising from the designation. Registry Services include: receipt of data concerning registration of domain names and nameservers from registrars, provision to registrars of status information relating to the Registry TLD, dissemination of TLD zone files, operation of the Registry TLD zone servers, dissemination of contact and other information concerning domain-name and nameserver registrations in the Registry TLD, and such other services required by ICANN in the manner provided in Subsections 4.3 through 4.6. Registry Services shall not include the provision of nameservice for a domain used by a single entity under a Registered Name registered through an ICANN-Accredited Registrar.
In addition, I believe that getting the report on the 27th and then voting on the issues report a couple of days later )2 I think) is not enough time to consider this report. This issue is too critical to not have careful consideration and is central to the Registries future viability. That combined with the fact that several members of the council will not be present in Tunisia, makes it unrealistic for us as a group to consider the Issues Report prior to the November meeting.
The Council needs to consider an issues report within 15 days of receiving it. I note that there may be difficulty in forming a properly constituted council meeting at that time depending on the state of constituency elections for new representatives. However I accept that there would be little time for Council representatives to consult with their constituencies. There is nothing stopping us considering the report in Carthage, but I accept your comment that it maybe premature to actually vote on initiating the policy development process at that time.
Furthermore, I have some other concerns about this process that I may be ready to discuss at the next Council meeting. Although a predictable process for the introduction of Registry Services is certainly a good thing, we are reviewing the legal implications of having members of the ICANN community [other than the ICANN staff or Board], who may or may not be competitors to us, provide input (either from a process or substance standpoint) into the introduction of registry services.
Certainly the council would need to consider this in the development of a process, and I encourage the committee/task force to request the ICANN General Counsel to provide advice on this point. Regards, Bruce