RE: [council] Clarification of Comments

[<Lucy.Nichols@xxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Ross on both points.  It was important that the council
take the initiative and follow-up on the resolution by requesting an
issues report.  

Upon further reflection, it was also presumptuous to presume that the
Staff Manager would not be able to meet the 15 day deadline.  If time
conflicts are an issue then, as Ross noted, the Staff Manager will
advise us of the conflict and we can then consider the alternatives
including the possibility of retaining outside assistance on the issues
report.  

Regards,

Lucy

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ext Ross Rader
>Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 6:02 PM
>To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [council] Clarification of Comments
>
>I want to ensure that my remarks today concerning the gTLD 
>registry agreements are very clear. My point is twofold;
>
>a) that the GNSO needs to properly consider the policy 
>implications of these agreements.
>
>b) that there is a process by which we do so.
>
>I've come to understand that there is some level of concern, 
>external to the GNSO, about the appropriateness of the GNSO 
>considering these matters. My response to this concern is that 
>if we are unable to consider these issues, we should 
>reconsider whether or not there is a continued role for the GNSO.
>
>These agreements govern the operations, assignment and 
>management of a specific gTLD. Not coincidentally, these are 
>the same areas of concern that comprised the original mandate 
>of the DNSO. This alone should be sufficient grounds for 
>Council to proceed with the work contemplated. 
>But, if further justification is necessary, a quick review of 
>the concerns raised by the various constituencies and advisory 
>committees over the past 60 days will demonstrate that these 
>agreements carry many policy implications - implications which 
>are clearly within the scope of concern for the GNSO.
>
>I continue to fully support the Council resolution "that the 
>ICANN Board should postpone adoption of the proposed 
>settlement while the Council fully investigates the policy 
>issues raised by the proposed changes" without reservation or 
>qualification.
>
>That said, the work undertaken as a result of this resolution 
>should be carried out according to the processes we've agreed 
>to. In our policy development process, the next step is to 
>request the creation of an issues report from the Staff 
>Manager. The Staff Manager must create an issues report for us 
>within 15 days. I don't believe it is appropriate for us to 
>presume that this obligation will not be met.  In the event 
>that we are unable to execute the process per the requirements 
>of the bylaws, we should consider what our alternatives are, 
>and proceed in a way that least offends those bylaws. In other 
>words, if the Staff Manager informs Council that we can't get 
>what we need to do our when in a time frame thats meaningful, 
>then we should look at other options - retaining outside help, etc.
>
>Thank you again for your attention to this important issue. If 
>there is anything that I can further clarify, please let me know.
>
>-ross
>