ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


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

[council] RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] FW: PDP Feb 06: Draft Agenda 10 August

  • To: "'Cubberley, Maureen \(CHT\)'" <MCubberley@xxxxxxxxx>, <pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] FW: PDP Feb 06: Draft Agenda 10 August
  • From: "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 16:27:45 -0400
  • Cc: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'John Jeffrey'" <jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx>, <denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <794E5AEDD116CB40BB88D00B232EED8E377EFB@OC2EX01.ME.MBGOV.CA>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Aca65NMi3v2sDLXSQj2cd5CxohbdVQAOVcJwADOnfpA=

I raised a topic on the Council call last week and believe it should also be
noted in the minutes of the TF meeting tomorrow as an issue of concern. I'll
preview it here for the TF members, and have copied Council, since not all
Councilors are on the TF. 

 

IF the GNSO Council is responsible for developing policy for GTLDS, then we
really have to have an understanding that there will be consultation between
the GNSO Council and the ICANN staff when there is urgent need for policy
development. Several constituencies raised the issue with ICANN senior
management and the Board regarding the .com situation that we expected to be
advised by ICANN if we need to fast track policy.

 

I find myself disappointed, and concerned,  to see that we seem to have an
apparent disconnect between activities related to drafting and proposing new
versions of existing registry agreements as posted by the ICANN General
Council and the work of the TF PDP 06. Since there is a policy development
process underway, approved by consensus vote of the GNSO Council, directly
relevant to policies in existing contracts with registries, I believe that
registry agreements should be redrafted only after the conclusion of the PDP
and following its recommendations.  I am concerned to see a posting of three
registry agreements, one of which does not lapse until 2009, without any
acknowledgement of the pending work of the GNSO Council. 

 

I note that ICANN staff mentioned on the Council call that these
negotiations were undertaken at the request of the registry operators, and I
am sure that is the case. That isn't the relevant point. The relevant point
is that there is policy development underway that is directly applicable. 

 

I raised this concern on the GNSO Council call last week, and will post
further to Council regarding Council's position on its role in developing
and determining GNSO policy which is then recommended to the Board. Ignoring
Council's role essentially means that our work and indeed our role is
irrelevant to ICANN. I find it hard to believe, as I review the strong
endorsement given by ICANN's senior management to the importance of bottom
up policy development, that that would be intentional outcome of any
activities presently underway. However, it can be an unintentional, and
harmful outcome.

 

 I believe that Council must address the topic and raise the concern to the
Board and the Senior Staff, awareness of the direct linkage of this policy
development process to the recently posted revised registry agreements.  

 

I support the Chair's proposal that we need to commit to a published
timeline that achieves the needed, and detailed and complex work in the time
we have between now and San Paulo. I am concerned to see the face to face
meeting moved into October. If that is the best we can do, then we need to
accomplish work in the meantime via conf. call working sessions. 

 

For the TF, we are going to have to meet more often, via conf. call, and
then face to face. Overall, we need to get this TF on a regular working
schedule. If we look at how frequently we have met, we see broad gaps. That
may signify that we need additional resources, and so tomorrow, I suggest
that we give consideration to recommending retention of not only independent
experts, but also possibly additional consulting resources to augment
existing staff resources. That may be the most practical approach to
ensuring that this important policy area is completed by the end of '06, as
originally conceptualized. We can then expect ICANN to advise us quickly of
resource availability to achieve the needed support to the TF. 

 

Marilyn Cade

BC TF member/GNSO Councilor 

 

 

P.S. I do have edits and suggestions for the draft report, but will do those
in marked up version for posting separately, after the call. 

 

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Cubberley, Maureen
(CHT)
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 3:16 PM
To: pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] FW: PDP Feb 06: Draft Agenda 10 August

 

Hello All, 

 

Draft agenda for Thursday's telecon is attached.

 

Thanks to everyone for creating time for this teleconference.  I realize
that the timing is inconvenient for many of the task force members, and I do
appreciate your effort to participate.

 

I look forward to our meeting on Thursday.

 

Best regards,

 

 Maureen.

 

Maureen Cubberley, Director

Public Library Services Branch

Department of Culture Heritage and Tourism

204-726-6864

mcubberley@xxxxxxxxx

 

 

 

 

 

 



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