Re: [council] GNSO Issues Report: .COM Agreement

[Sophia B <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

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.
Sophia

On 06/02/06, Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> *Council,*
> *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 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
> report.
> 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.
>
> Philip
>



--
Sophia Bekele
Voice/Fax: 925-935-1598
Mob:925-818-0948
sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx
sbekele@xxxxxxxxxxx
SKYPE: skypesoph
www.cbsintl.com