Hello Jeff, Thanks for forwarding this notice to the Council. Note that the PDP process incorporates several stages. The first stage is the production of an issues report by ICANN staff (including the General Counsel) for consideration by Council. The issues you raise below should be dealt with within the issues report. I am expecting Paul Twomey and John Jeffrey to attend the Council meeting this week to answer questions and take feedback. If the Council decides to request the production of an issues report, then the issue you raised below should be included in that issues report. The registry constituency representatives on Council will have the opportunity on the call this week to raise their concerns directly with Paul Twomey and John Jeffrey, for addressing within a possible issues report. I hope that the registry members of council will participate in the call this week. I think the production of an issues report is consistent with your request below. The issues report is where the general counsel may advise the council that a particular issue is outside the scope of ICANN or beyond the capabilities of the GNSO to address. Note also that the council must formally vote on continuing the policy development process after receiving the issues report, and also formally vote on approving any consensus recommendations, and finally the Board must formally vote on whether to accept any policy from the GNSO. If an issue report is produced, the Council will also need to carefully develop the process terms of reference for any task force assigned to examine the issue. In developing the terms of refernece the Council may clearly identify issues wihic are in-scope and out-of-scope. Thus there are many checks and balances in the process to prevent problems with competitiors trying to restrict the introduction of new services. I think you should trust and work within the process that has been developed after extensive community consultation. Regards, Bruce

-----Original Message----- From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us] Sent: Tuesday, 14 October 2003 12:06 AM To: 'council@gnso.icann.org' Cc: 'try-planning@nic.museum' Subject: [council] FW: Statement of New Registry Services PDP Importance: High

This message was sent by the unsponsored registry members of the gTLD Registries Constituency this morning. We cannot support the contemplated PDP process without these issues being addressed and we are evaluating whether or not we will participate in this week's scheduled call -- this being the only issue to be addressed on the call.

Jeff Neuman

...

-----Original Message----- From: Neuman, Jeff Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 10:02 AM To: 'twomey@icann.org'; 'jeffrey@icann.org'; 'smith@icann.org' Cc: 'vcerf@mci.net'; 'apisan@servidor.unam.mx'; 'dam@icann.org'; 'halloran@icann.org'; 'pritz@icann.org' Subject: Statement of New Registry Services PDP Importance: High

Dear Paul, The unsponsored registry members of gTLD Registries Constituency (.biz, .com, .info, .name, .net, .org and .pro) are concerned that a process for the introduction of Registry Services involving a policy development process within the ICANN community may pose serious competition issues. Referral of new Registry Services through a PDP, or even community consultation, when some members of the community may be viewed as competitors with the gTLD Registries for certain Registry Services could potentially inhibit and interfere with the business of the gTLD Registries. We therefore formally request that any engagement of the policy development process involving procedures for the introduction of Registry Services, be halted until such time as the ICANN General Counsel provides a formal legal opinion the ramifications of such a process from an antitrust and unfair competition standpoint. In addition, we intend to engage our own individual counsels on these vital issues prior to engaging in this process with the ICANN staff and/or community. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Chair gTLD Registries Constituency