John, and TF members To clarify a few points, first, consensus is not unanimity. Secondly, I see no reason that this TF cannot fulfill its work within the timelines of '06. additional resources may be needed to do that, and I would assume that ICANN would want to, and would support the needed resources to policy development. Just to be sure I understood the financial challenges, I reviewed the Operational Plan and the budget last night. I'm pretty confident that the resources can be found in the budget to support the Policy Development Process. When I accepted this TF assignment, I certainly budgeted time on my calendar for the time needed -- I presently spend 1 1/2 hours every two weeks on WHOIS on TF calls; I spend additional time outside of that TF on that topic. I spend the needed time to review materials and participate in the '05 TF. I budgeted the time to do that. I assume that we should spend at least 2 hours on a call, twice a month, on this TF, with outside time to support that. When I co-chaired the WHOIS TF, and chaired the Transfers TF, we met twice a week, for 2 hours each meeting to accomplish our work.... that was what was needed, the stakeholders stepped up to the challenge. I am confident that the stakeholders can do the same on this TF. I am not prejudging the outcomes. It is possible that there would be only one policy recommendation, or 4, or 6 -- don't overreact to that forecast, it is merely an illustration. BUT, the point is that we have a PDP, and we authorized it, and it is legitimate, and we should fulfill it. Again, I have read all the materials, and the statements made in various for a, and I see fulsome support from ICANN to the bottom up participation model that ICANN was founded on. I don't see a problem here, other than identifying needed resources, getting the funding allocated, and doing the work. Consensus is not unanimity. But it is consensus. Marilyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bret Fausett Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 12:57 AM To: 'Marilyn Cade'; 'John Jeffrey'; 'Cubberley, Maureen ((CHT))'; pdp-pcceg-feb06@gnso.icann.org; 'Council GNSO' Cc: 'Denise Michel' Subject: RE: [council] RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] FW: PDP Feb 06: Draft Agenda 10 August
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.
ICANN starting pushing this idea that 'contracts aren't policy' back when it tried to sell the community on the first ICANN-Network Solutions contract. Since that time, the "disparity of opinion" has been between Joe Sims, trying to sell a series of unpalatable NetSol-Verisign contracts to the community, and everyone else. The fact that the disparity has been "long-running" is more an indicator of the legal staff's recalcitrance than a sign of a legitimate dispute among equal factions in the stakeholder community. The "new" ICANN has the opportunity to break this cycle and bring some sense to the debate. -- Bret