Olof, I have a few comments. First, thanks
for getting this turned around, and for the incorporation of the changes, as
provided by the discussion within the Council.
I have a few comments. I just noticed that
the actual document is mislabeled. It should continue to say “DRAFT Terms
of Ref… etc. and perhaps even have a document number of such as Version
2.0, or whatever.
Overall, we have to have a clear
understanding, duly reflected in the ToR that this is about both existing and
future gTLDs. The title is confusing, therefore. And in the goal, it references
“long term” but not existing… I don’t want to have any
misunderstandings by the Board, staff, or community on this subject and I know
that titles and wording are essential to ensure that there are no such
misunderstandings.
What is being called PDP –Dec05 does
not address the same list of topics and I could not see us developing separate
kinds of policies for “new” gTLDS than the existing ones, while I
can see there being differences in the kinds of gTLDs.
Finally, I notice that you have referenced
in the last paragraph before the Goal statement that the two PDPs would be
incorporated into a single gTLD policy. Since there are actually going to be –
potentially—various policies that govern policy for existing and new
gTLDs, perhaps the term of art is more a ‘single set of policies for
gTLDs. I doubt there will be a “single” policy. “-)
So, this draft version will need more
editing, to incorporate some of these and probably other clarifications, and we
should all try to get any suggestions/clarifications to you, so that you can
incorporate them, and get the GC to review them before our next Council meeting
on Thursday.
Thanks again for your work. I see both of
us are online on our Sundays!
Marilyn
From:
owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of olof nordling
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006
12:19 PM
To: council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] New draft ToR
for PDP on contractual conditions for existing gTLDs
Dear Council members,
As agreed, I have modified the ToR in line with the
discussions at the Council call 16 February, with most valued help from other
staff attending the call. See attachment. I have used the paragraph wordings supplied
to the list by Ross and Bruce (taking the latest submission in one case when
both had provided slightly different texts) and staff notes for a couple of
other agreed changes. I must emphasize that the exact outcome was not always
crystal clear so please consider the new draft carefully.
Also, regarding Marilyn’s recent mail, the expression
“privacy rights” remains in 5a, but I do share Marilyn’s
concern that this expression may be amiss. It is probably not
“intellectual property rights” we’re looking for either and
it may be appropriate to use a more explicit sentence to capture the gist of
what is intended.
Best regards
Olof