Re: [council] Registry services - consensus policy- dot net

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I propose we also understand how to limit this from perpetuating itself as 
well. Isn't that as essential and urgent task?
-----Original Message-----
From: <tony.ar.holmes@xxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:28:34 
To:<philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [council] Registry services - consensus policy- dot net

I support Philips position on this
 
 
 
Tony
 
-----Original Message-----
 From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Philip  Sheppard
 Sent: 27  July 2005 10:11
 To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Subject: [council] Registry services - consensus policy- dot net
 
 
 
Background 
 Alick posted a request by Neustar for Council not to proceed with a consensus 
policy on registry services. 
 The argument was that the new .net agreement is different and that would lead 
to unequal treatment. 
 I am sympathetic to the argument but not to the proposed course of action. Let 
me explain why. 
  
 Role of Council 
 It is the role of Council to make consensus policy and that policy should be 
binding on all parties. 
 We should continue to do this. 
  
 Dot net agreement 
 The dot net agreement has limitations with respect to the application of 
consensus policy to Registry Services (see below for clip from the .net 
agreement), and it establishes its own unique procedure for changes to Registry 
Services.
 
This seems to be a fundamental corruption of the principle upon which consensus 
policy rests. 
 It seems to be a violation of the raison d'etre of the GNSO Council itself. 
 I believe this is the issue to discuss. 
  
 Philip 
 --------------------------------------------------- 
 This seems to be the relevant section from the new .net agreement: 
 Section 3.1 b.(iv) 
 In addition to the other limitations on Consensus Policies, they shall not: 
 (A) prescribe or limit the price of Registry Services; 
 
(B) modify the standards for the consideration of proposed Registry Services, 
including the definitions of Security and Stability
 
(set forth below) and the standards applied by ICANN; 
 
(C) for three years following the Effective Date, modify the procedure for the 
consideration of proposed Registry Services;
 
(D) modify the terms or conditions for the renewal or termination of this 
Agreement; 
 
(E) modify ICANNs obligations to Registry Operator under Section 3.2 (a), (b), 
and (c); 
 
(F) modify the limitations on Consensus Policies or Temporary Specifications or 
Policies; 
 
(G) modify the definition of Registry Services; 
 
(H) modify the terms of Sections 7.2 and 7.3, below; and {relates to pricing} 
 
(I) alter services that have been implemented pursuant to Section 3.1(d) of 
this Agreement (unless justified by compelling and
 
just cause based on Security and Stability). 
 
  
  
 
Regards,
Marilyn Cade