ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] A comment on: GNSO Issues Report Proposed .COM Registry Agreement

  • To: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] A comment on: GNSO Issues Report Proposed .COM Registry Agreement
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 16:40:11 -0500
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


I am sending this note because I am concerned that I will not be able to join the council conference call during this discussion.

From the GNSO PDP .com Issue report

2. General Counsel's Opinion: The General Counsel’s opinion is that "the dot COM proposed agreement in relation to the various views that have been expressed by the constituencies" is not "properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within
the scope of the GNSO."

While several of the specific issues in the contract are of interest to me, especially the presumption of renewal, I think this meta issue is the most important issue facing the council at the moment.

While it may be true the the negotiation of the contract, in and of itself, is not within the GNSO council's purview, I think that the relationship between the clauses in the contract and the PDP policies already in place is indeed an issue that is relevant to the council. I also thing that any precedent or frameworks for future decsions a contract may make regarding future policy is relevant to the GSNCO council.

I think that the council, as a council and as a body that represents the views of constituencies, does have the repsonsiblity to review a contract to determine:

- whether anything negotiated by the staff contradicts any of the policies currently in existence. - whether anything in the contract sets policy precedents or frameworks that have not been reviewed and discussed.

And I believe that the council has the responsibility of reporting on these determinations and that the board needs to consider these determinations before the Board signs a contract. I do not agree with the implication in the report (7.5, 8) that this duty belongs to the General Counsel alone. I also am not certain that, as outlined in (8) that the .com agreement does not set any policy precedents or frameworks for future decisions.

This is not to argue that a PDP should be created in regard to a specific contract, as a policy should be general and not specific to one contract. But it does argue that creating a PDP relating to contracts in general and how the affect they have on current and future policies may be a reasonable action to take. If the policies already in place do not call it out specifically, it is important that the GSNO council have the authority to review any contract's relation to the PDP policies and that the GNSO council should make recommendations to the board before it makes any decisions on signing a contract.

As I mentioned in the beginning of this note, I think the effort of the GC, as I understand it, to remove from ICANN and the GNSO council the responsibility for reviewing a contract's policy compliance and implications is problematic and needs to be understood and resolved.

Apologies for not being able to participate in the discussion on Monday.


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>