the reason i posted this to the list is that this document embraces certain basis tenets that our constituency believes are generic to contractual relationships with ICANN. The proposed PDP we will be discussing tonight purports to "impose" possible conclusions of a PDP on subject matter that is exclusively within the responsibility of the Board of Directors of ICANN. Marilyn Cade wrote:
Ken, this document seems to be about the .com award/litigation settlement. Can I ask what comment process you are referencing here? One of the Council's comment periods?
If .com is indeed the topic, then I question that it is really NOT appropriate for us to be discussing this in our process of Council work. It could appear to some that the Registry Constituency is trying to get the Council to discuss a specific contract, which I think is in fact, what we are not doing. And which we all agreed in the last call or two, in discussions with Senior staff and General Counsel was indeed NOT the case.
I've copied the constituency members who are here, as participants, so that when we open the Council meeting today, which I understand they are attending as observers, they are aware of the topic.
If you are suggesting that we can discuss specific examples, then we would of course, reference all gTLD registry agreements in our discussion.
Regard,
Marilyn Cade
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ken Stubbs Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 12:15 PM To: names council Subject: [council] Registry Operators Statement re Verisign Settlement.DOC
This was submitted by our constituency as part of the comment process. I thought i would make it available to you directly for the upcoming deliberations
regards
Ken Stubbs