[council] GNSO Issues Report: .COM Agreement
- To: "'GNSO Council'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [council] GNSO Issues Report: .COM Agreement
- From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 09:49:05 +0100
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcYoxzAbFnftb5AeRHqb7zQuF9kZ6QCMl+cw
> A few personal reflections on the GC's advice to us.
> The issues report on dot com contains general counsel's (GC) advice on scope.
> The GC
> concludes we are out of scope but I find the reasoning overly narrow.
> The GC considered the PDP scope article:
"1. is within the scope of ICANN's mission statement;
> 2. is broadly applicable to multiple situations or organizations;
> 3. is likely to have lasting value or applicability, albeit with the need for
> occasional updates;
> 4. will establish a guide or framework for future decision-making; or
> 5. implicates or affects an existing ICANN policy."
> And the GC states:
"a) any such issues resulting from this request are specifically targeting the
.COM Registry Agreement, and therefore such policies do not apply to multiple
Surely illogical. The essence of the GNSO concern is that GNSO consensus policy
"broadly applicable to multiple situations or organisations" has been REMOVED
specific proposed agreement.
"b) any such issues resulting from this request are specifically targeting the
.COM Registry Agreement will not have lasting value or applicability,
that agreement has already been supplanted by the 2006 Proposed .COM Registry
Surely irrelevant. This would be relevant if the character of the 2006
agreement was a
radical shift from the 2005 agreement. IT IS NOT!
"c) any such issues resulting from this request are specifically targeting the
.COM Registry Agreement are unlikely to provide a guide or framework for future
making, particularly as in this case where the proposed version of the
agreement for which
the comments have been raised has already been supplanted and amended (where
response to the community feedback."
Surely irrelevant. The issues of concern to the GNSO have been raised in
> The issues report quotes Council's December resolution for which a key
> recital is:
> "Whereas the GNSO Council believes that there are broader questions raised in
> the proposed
> settlement that need to be first addressed by the GNSO";
> It was this resolution which underpins Council's request for an issues
> The issues report seems to circumvents the pertinent issues:
> a) that existing and binding ICANN consensus policy is being ignored in the
> b) and the precedence this sets,
> c) the precedent set for other issues.
> This issues report disappoints.