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.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 <mailto:mcubberley@gov.mb.ca> mcubberley@gov.mb.ca John Jeffrey john.jeffrey@icann.org