Re: [council] Commencement of the new PDP
I want to better understand the pros and cons of a Council of the whole versus a TF. I am not convinced that a TF will improve the conflicts of time for Council, since there are overlapping issues between the two PDPs. I would instead propose that Council examine the sppointment of up to three experts for both PDP processes. I suspect that additional support in gathering information, examining options, and augmenting the development if materials will do more to enable effective work by the Council, in two parallel PDPs. There is an outstanding work item requested earlier for a work plan that takes into account the realistic time frames needed to complete the new gTLDs PDP. Marilyn -----Original Message----- From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 21:57:57 To:<council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Commencement of the new PDP Hello All, With reference to section 4 of Annex A of the ICANN bylaws, we need to decide whether to form a task force: "4. Commencement of the PDP At the meeting of the Council initiating the PDP, the Council shall decide, by a majority vote of members present at the meeting, whether to appoint a task force to address the issue. If the Council votes: a. In favor of convening a task force, it shall do so in accordance with the provisions of Item 7 below. b. Against convening a task force, then it will collect information on the policy issue in accordance with the provisions of Item 8 below." I note that Council members are currently involved as part of a Committee-of-the-whole-Council on the new gTLD policy area. I recommend that we form a separate task force on the new PDP to ensure we have enough resources to focus on the new gTLD process and don't distract that process. Note under section 7 (b) of Annex A of the bylaws: "Task Force Charter or Terms of Reference. The Council, with the assistance of the Staff Manager, shall develop a charter or terms of reference for the task force (the "Charter") within ten (10) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. Such Charter will include: 1. the issue to be addressed by the task force, as such issue was articulated for the vote before the Council that commenced the PDP; 2. the specific timeline that the task force must adhere to, as set forth below, unless the Board determines that there is a compelling reason to extend the timeline; and 3. any specific instructions from the Council for the task force, including whether or not the task force should solicit the advice of outside advisors on the issue." I recommend that we form a task force with experts in areas around the economics of the gTLD registry environment. Issues under consideration including competition, pricing controls, renewal provisions etc. Constituencies could appoint appropriate representatives, but we may wish to identify appropriate independent experts to advise the Council on this important topic area. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Regards, Marilyn Cade
I agree with the earlier proposal of creating a TF to pursue the .com agreement work. In order to speed along reconciliation of these competing proposals (to retain experts v. form a TF) - I'd also like understand better what specifically the expert 3rd parties would be retained to do. My initial instinct is that it is premature to discuss the retention of experts before we understand the questions and answers we are looking for. -ross Marilyn Cade wrote:
I want to better understand the pros and cons of a Council of the whole versus a TF. I am not convinced that a TF will improve the conflicts of time for Council, since there are overlapping issues between the two PDPs. I would instead propose that Council examine the sppointment of up to three experts for both PDP processes. I suspect that additional support in gathering information, examining options, and augmenting the development if materials will do more to enable effective work by the Council, in two parallel PDPs. There is an outstanding work item requested earlier for a work plan that takes into account the realistic time frames needed to complete the new gTLDs PDP.
Marilyn -----Original Message----- From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 21:57:57 To:<council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Commencement of the new PDP
Hello All,
With reference to section 4 of Annex A of the ICANN bylaws, we need to decide whether to form a task force:
"4. Commencement of the PDP
At the meeting of the Council initiating the PDP, the Council shall decide, by a majority vote of members present at the meeting, whether to appoint a task force to address the issue. If the Council votes:
a. In favor of convening a task force, it shall do so in accordance with the provisions of Item 7 below.
b. Against convening a task force, then it will collect information on the policy issue in accordance with the provisions of Item 8 below."
I note that Council members are currently involved as part of a Committee-of-the-whole-Council on the new gTLD policy area.
I recommend that we form a separate task force on the new PDP to ensure we have enough resources to focus on the new gTLD process and don't distract that process.
Note under section 7 (b) of Annex A of the bylaws:
"Task Force Charter or Terms of Reference. The Council, with the assistance of the Staff Manager, shall develop a charter or terms of reference for the task force (the "Charter") within ten (10) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. Such Charter will include:
1. the issue to be addressed by the task force, as such issue was articulated for the vote before the Council that commenced the PDP;
2. the specific timeline that the task force must adhere to, as set forth below, unless the Board determines that there is a compelling reason to extend the timeline; and
3. any specific instructions from the Council for the task force, including whether or not the task force should solicit the advice of outside advisors on the issue."
I recommend that we form a task force with experts in areas around the economics of the gTLD registry environment. Issues under consideration including competition, pricing controls, renewal provisions etc. Constituencies could appoint appropriate representatives, but we may wish to identify appropriate independent experts to advise the Council on this important topic area.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Regards, Marilyn Cade
Ross Rader wrote:
I'd also like understand better what specifically the expert 3rd parties would be retained to do. My initial instinct is that it is premature to discuss the retention of experts before we understand the questions and answers we are looking for.
I typically think of "expert" work as something on which specialized knowledge, outside the common understanding of members of the counsel, is required. On the .COM Agreement, when we're talking about what contractual issues are properly GNSO policy issues, that strikes me as exactly the sort of thing the Council can and should do on its own. To the extent that we need expertise in registry services technical issues and do not believe that we would get neutral, unbiased input from the registries constituency (no offense intended, folks, just a possibility whenever we have one constituency that is particularly affected by a PDP), that might be another place where expertise would be helpful. Bret
Agree. Kiyoshi I. Tsuru Bello, Gallardo, Morales y Tsuru, S.C. Agustín Manuel Chávez 1 - 001 Centro de Ciudad Santa Fe 01210, México, D.F. Tel. +52 (55) 5292-5232 Fax +52 (55) 5292-5233 www.bgmt.com.mx La información contenida en este mensaje de datos es confidencial, constituye un secreto industrial en términos de la legislación vigente y se encuentra dirigida exclusivamente al destinatario indicado en dicho mensaje. Si usted recibe esta información por error o si usted no es el destinatario del mensaje, favor de destruirlo inmediatamente, absteniéndose de leerlo, reproducirlo, transmitirlo, almacenarlo, divulgarlo, revelarlo o usarlo de manera directa o indirecta en cualquier forma y por cualquier medio. Muchas gracias. The information contained in this electronic message is confidential, privileged and intended for its recipient only. If you receive this mail by mistake and/or if you are not the recipient thereof, please destroy it immediately, abstaining yourself from reading, reproducing, transmitting, storing, disclosing, revealing or using it, either directly or indirectly, in any manner and by any means. Thank you very much. -----Mensaje original----- De: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] En nombre de Bret Fausett Enviado el: Miércoles, 08 de Febrero de 2006 11:42 a.m. Para: GNSO Council Asunto: Re: [council] Commencement of the new PDP Ross Rader wrote:
I'd also like understand better what specifically the expert 3rd parties would be retained to do. My initial instinct is that it is premature to discuss the retention of experts before we understand the questions and answers we are looking for.
I typically think of "expert" work as something on which specialized knowledge, outside the common understanding of members of the counsel, is required. On the .COM Agreement, when we're talking about what contractual issues are properly GNSO policy issues, that strikes me as exactly the sort of thing the Council can and should do on its own. To the extent that we need expertise in registry services technical issues and do not believe that we would get neutral, unbiased input from the registries constituency (no offense intended, folks, just a possibility whenever we have one constituency that is particularly affected by a PDP), that might be another place where expertise would be helpful. Bret
participants (4)
-
Bret Fausett -
Kiyoshi I. Tsuru -
Marilyn Cade -
Ross Rader