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@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@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@gnso.icannorg
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
John Jeffrey