I would like to add my voice in support of Marilyn's comments in her email below. The current situation of staff renogiating registry contracts, apparently independently of the PDP06 work is entirely unsatisfactory. These negotiations are in effect policy making on the fly and risk setting precedents for the PDP06 work without any apparent regard to good policy making principles. I therefore agree with Marilyn that the best course would be for these negotiations to be put on hold until the PDP06 work is complete. This is a reasonable course of action to take as none of these agreements are due to expire this year. With concentrated effort, appropriate resources and assistance and good will there is no reason why this work cannot be completed in time to allow for adequate time for the conclusion of these negotiations before the agreements expire. As Marilyn says, these negotiations mean that the PDP06 work becomes a high priority. I think the task force needs the assistance of independent experts and appropriate consulting resources to work through some of the tricky policy issues confronting us. Such additional resources are critical for ensuring that the work can be completed quickly. Regarding independent experts, some task force members have argued that they would be able to provide the apropriate expertise. While I would add myself to this list in the areas of anti-trust and resource allocation since these matters are my day job, I along with everybody else on the task force will be representing my constituency in this work. As a result, while I may respresent my views as the objective opinion of an expert in a particular field, I would not expect other constituencies to agree that my views are objective because I represent a particular constituency. I don't believe the situation is any different for other task force members. An independent expert or experts that do not have a particular barrow to push will be of great assistance in helping us resolve the difficult policy issues confronting this task force in a timely way. Identifying appropriate independent experts should be a priority. Finally, I am not able to join the call tonight because it starts at 2am my time and I do have a day job. I know that I live in a difficult time zone compared with most of the planet's population but I would appreciate more consideration when setting meeting times in future. I already have to deal with council calls running from midnight to 2am so I do not think it unreasonable to ask that neither council nor taskforce calls are scheduled between the hours of 2 and 5am for any council or task force member. I accept that this is not possible for face-to-face meetings. Best regards Alistair Alistair Dixon Industry and Regulatory Affairs Ph +64 4 920 3098 (Wellington) Telstra Clear Ltd Ph +64 29 912 4301 (mobile) PO Box 1271 Ph +64 9 912 4301 (Auckland) Centreport Fax +64 4 920 3588 Wellington alistair.dixon@team.telstraclear.co.nz -----Original Message----- From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@icann.org [mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@icann.org]On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Thursday, 10 August 2006 08:28 To: 'Cubberley, Maureen (CHT)'; pdp-pcceg-feb06@gnso.icann.org Cc: 'Council GNSO'; 'John Jeffrey'; denise.michel@icann.org Subject: RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] FW: PDP Feb 06: Draft Agenda 10 August 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.icann.org 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 mcubberley@gov.mb.ca