Re: [council] GNSO Issues Report: .COM Agreement
- To: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Issues Report: .COM Agreement
- From: Sophia B <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 11:05:01 -0800
- Cc: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=p1uRcEKY1YrwEnwAvZuP0x4Fx8cUfqH+f0R1qUKjG9nhFLAiqGYuA5INXRa6eus4gxsXz1oiGbewoF3bs0M4M9r95EzT0DXoTLn7jLULUXdE32AM2ei3qsEfF+t7NYF/U7TSvmuDrUEgn/CBUJmgvsts+wPWkan1KyCeKCaA+KY=
- In-reply-to: <200602060846.k168kUq2021154@turbo.aim.be>
- References: <200602060846.k168kUq2021154@turbo.aim.be>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I am in agreement with some of the opinions and facts rendered below by
Phillip and prior comments from the Council on the 'issues report'.
I have read it and found it to be a bit contrived, as the GC is applying
the PDP scope article, as an argument to fend off the proposed GNSO request
for the report. I believe the important issues that need to be addressed
have been overlooked as a result.
I believe there is room for proceeding with the a PDP.
On 06/02/06, Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx> wrote:
> *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
> 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 2005 Proposed .COM Registry Agreement, and therefore such policies do
> not apply to multiple situations or organizations";
Surely illogical. The essence of the GNSO concern is that GNSO consensus
policy which is "broadly applicable to multiple situations or organisations"
has been REMOVED from the specific proposed agreement.
> "b) any such issues resulting from this request are specifically targeting
> the 2005 Proposed .COM Registry Agreement will not have lasting value or
> applicability, particularly where that agreement has already been
> supplanted by the 2006 Proposed .COM Registry (Agreement);"
> 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 2005 Proposed .COM Registry Agreement are unlikely to provide a guide
> or framework for future decisions 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 possible) in
> response to the community feedback."
> Surely irrelevant. The issues of concern to the GNSO have been raised in
> community feedback and ignored.
> 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 proposed Agreement,
> b) and the precedence this sets,
> c) the precedent set for other issues.
> This issues report disappoints.