Bret: Point of clarification, I believe you would like to hear from someone from the Board in Luxemburg, not Mar del Plata :-) I share your concern that the ALAC and Internet Community at large deserving to have a more detailed explanation regarding the Board's decisions. I would hope that you and others that feel the same way consider making this point known during the various public forums. I would also like to suggest that the ALAC, similar to other ICANN constituencies, consider inviting the full Board to your meeting during a designated time. Currently I believe the Board is scheduled to meet with the IPC, Business and ISPs in a cross constituency meeting Monday morning, followed by a lunch meeting with the registries, followed by an afternoon meeting with the registrars on Monday. These sessions on average last approximately one hour. I would recommend the ALAC interfacing with Diane Schroeder since she coordinates many of the Board's movements during these meetings. Best regards, Michael D. Palage -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of Bret Fausett Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 4:29 PM To: michael@palage.com Cc: council@gnso.icann.org; apisan@servidor.unam.mx Subject: Re: [council] ICANN Board Resolutions - 28-June-2005 Thank you for this update, Michael. In the ALAC, we have concerns about the lack of transparency around the .NET decision. Specifically, the view from the outside is that the public comments, the ALAC submission, and the GNSO submission were not given due consideration by the Board. In fact, from the outside, it is not clear that these contributions were given *any* consideration by the Board. In Mar del Plata, I would like to hear someone from the Board make a presentation that responds to the significant concerns voiced by the public, the ALAC and the GNSO about the award. This is not to say that Verisign was the wrong choice, only that we deserve an explanation as to why Verisign was the right choice in light of the contributions ICANN received from the community.

During the call I also requested an update on the .NET contract negotiations. As you may be aware this contract was recently executed by VeriSign and ICANN and will go into effect July 1, 2005 (tomorrow).

So, how do we start this? Right now, there is not a real dialogue between the Councils and the Board members on topics of impact on ICANN. The Councils haven't fully developed their interaction with the board, behaviorally, if you think about it. . That is probably an accident of circumstances, but it is our responsibility to devise a better way to interact with the Board. Perhaps we should be thinking of a joint retreat in Vancouver -- ccNSO Council, gNSO Council, ASO/RIRs, Liaisons from ALAC, Board/liaisons. We could focus on the StratPlan processes as a working topic, or ICANN in a post MOU environment. The agenda could be worked out by a small group of chairs of the SOs/designees. A full day should be set aside for this interaction. Yes, I understand it is a large group. I've facilitated groups of this size before. One method could be to create small working groups of a mix of all the players for parts of the program. But the important thing is that the leadership teams would begin to work together. Marilyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2005 10:30 PM To: michael@palage.com Cc: Bret Fausett; council@gnso.icann.org; apisan@servidor.unam.mx Subject: Re: [council] ICANN Board Resolutions - 28-June-2005 On 6/30/2005 4:56 PM Michael D. Palage noted that:

I share your concern that the ALAC and Internet Community at large deserving to have a more detailed explanation regarding the Board's decisions.

I'd be happy starting with the SO's and the ALAC getting a high level briefing...we can work on the Internet community and specific detail during phase two of our little openness and transparency project. -- Regards, -rwr "In the modern world the intelligence of public opinion is the one indispensable condition for social progress." - Charles W. Eliot (1834 - 1926)

Dear Council Members: I share your concern about the lack of proper communication. I have tried to take positive steps in the right direction by posting timely updates about the scheduling of ICANN Board meetings and resolutions as well as other key ICANN document postings. By the way, for those interested, the .NET agreement is now available online at http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/net. I also think the new format of the Board/Council breakfast will also yield increased positive results. Notwithstanding these positive steps I believe there is a significant communication disconnect between the stakeholders and the ICANN Board/staff. I am open to any suggestions that the council may have to improve these lines of communication. However, I believe that Marilyn is on to something with her last email. The Strategic and Operational Planning process is probably the MOST vital mechanism in which stakeholders can have a voice in the future of ICANN. For it is this mechanism that future evolutions of ICANN, 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0 will occur. As always I am open to your suggestions. Best regards, Michael D. Palage -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of Ross Rader Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 10:50 AM To: Marilyn Cade Cc: michael@palage.com; 'Bret Fausett'; council@gnso.icann.org; apisan@servidor.unam.mx Subject: Re: [council] ICANN Board Resolutions - 28-June-2005 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 04/07/2005 1:14 AM Marilyn Cade noted that;

So, how do we start this?

I personally don't see sufficient formal lines of communication or process in place to facilitate the level of communication that the community and stakeholders desire. These must be built in order to facilitate the relationships - I'm not sure that it works the other way around. - -- Regards, -rwr "Every contrivance of man, every tool, every instrument, every utensil, every article designed for use, of each and every kind, evolved from very simple beginnings." - Robert Collier Got Blog? http://www.blogware.com My Blogware: http://www.byte.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP) iD8DBQFCyUyo6sL06XjirooRAm5oAJsF3i13Zt7DT3RYo54ChZA3X8dQnQCffAjX 4IHvB/v4M60NXV3Wj63M4p0= =r5RJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From 1 July 2005 through 31 December 2006, the price to ICANN-accredited registrars for new and renewal domain name registrations and for

Dear Bret, I had previously noted that policy is being changed via contract, but I had not noticed this particular change. However, I recall that actually .net was one of the $6 registry fees, was it not? Thus, if that is the case, this would be a decrease to a much lower fee for the registrars. Perhaps we have a difference of perspective with the staff/and even the Board on what constitutes policy, and therefore the role of the Councils, and even the advisory role of the ALAC. If so, we need to at least discuss that difference of perspective and bridge the gap so that there aren't continued misunderstandings and confusion. It is very possible that market forces would be sufficient to keep a registry at a lower registry fee, however, even if that is the case, the topic should be put before the Council, it seems to me, and include consultation with the ALAC. I had thought that the price cap was $6 but that registries were free to charge less, but we should ask the registrars. If that price cap remains in place, then we may have a different level of concern. :-) _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bret Fausett Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 4:36 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: ALAC Subject: [council] Removing Price Caps on Registry Fees Council Members (with copy to ALAC): You may recall that in the draft .NET contract posted for comment several weeks ago, the pricing section was blank, with the following comment: [To be negotiated consistent with .NET RFP]. See Section 7.3 here: http://www.icann.org/tlds/dotnet-reassignment/draft-net-agreement-9mar05.pdf When the final negotiated version was published, I went to that section to find out what pricing had been negotiated and was surprised to discover that ICANN will lift the price caps on registry fees effective 1 January 2007. The language is here: (a) Prices for Registry Services. transferring a domain name registration from one ICANN accredited registrar to another, shall not exceed US$4.25 (consisting of a US$3.50 service fee and a US$0.75 ICANN fee). On 1 January 2007, the controls on Registry Operator's pricing set forth in this Agreement shall be eliminated, provided that the same price shall be charged to all registrars with respect to each annual increment of a new or renewal domain name registration, and for transferring a domain name registration from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another (provided that volume discounts and marketing support and incentive programs may be made if the same opportunities to qualify for those discounts and marketing support and incentive programs is available to all ICANN-accredited registrars). (b) Adjustments to Pricing for Domain Name Registrations. Registry Operator shall provide no less than six months prior notice in advance of any price increase for domain name registrations and shall continue to offer domain name registrations for periods of up to ten years. See Scetion 7.3 here: http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/net/net-registry-agreement-01jul05.pdf This strikes me as a significant departure from past practices, and I do not recall any discussion of this at either the Council level or within the ALAC. I wonder whether market forces will be sufficient to prevent Verisign from raising the .NET registry fees significantly. At a minimum, we should have had a conversation about this. Have I missed something? Bret