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

[Alistair DIXON <Alistair.Dixon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I would like to add my voice in support of Marilyn's comments in her email 
below.  The current situation of staff renogiating registry contracts, 
apparently independently of the PDP06 work is entirely unsatisfactory. These 
negotiations are in effect policy making on the fly and risk setting precedents 
for the PDP06 work without any apparent regard to good policy making 
principles.  I therefore agree with Marilyn that the best course would be for 
these negotiations to be put on hold until the PDP06 work is complete.  This is 
a reasonable course of action to take as none of these agreements are due to 
expire this year.  With concentrated effort, appropriate resources and 
assistance and good will there is no reason why this work cannot be completed 
in time to allow for adequate time for the conclusion of these negotiations 
before the agreements expire.
 
As Marilyn says, these negotiations mean that the PDP06 work becomes a high 
priority.  I think the task force needs the assistance of independent experts 
and appropriate consulting resources to work through some of the tricky policy 
issues confronting us.  Such additional resources are critical for ensuring 
that the work can be completed quickly.
 
Regarding independent experts, some task force members have argued that they 
would be able to provide the apropriate expertise.  While I would add myself to 
this list in the areas of anti-trust and resource allocation since these 
matters are my day job, I along with everybody else on the task force will be 
representing my constituency in this work.  As a result, while I may respresent 
my views as the objective opinion of an expert in a particular field, I would 
not expect other constituencies to agree that my views are objective because I 
represent a particular constituency.  I don't believe the situation is any 
different for other task force members.  An independent expert or experts that 
do not have a particular barrow to push will be of great assistance in helping 
us resolve the difficult policy issues confronting this task force in a timely 
way.  Identifying appropriate independent experts should be a priority.
 
Finally, I am not able to join the call tonight because it starts at 2am my 
time and I do have a day job.  I know that I live in a difficult time zone 
compared with most of the planet's population but I would appreciate more 
consideration when setting meeting times in future.  I already have to deal 
with council calls running from midnight to 2am so I do not think it 
unreasonable to ask that neither council nor taskforce calls are scheduled 
between the hours of 2 and 5am for any council or task force member. I accept 
that this is not possible for face-to-face meetings.
 
Best regards
Alistair
 

Alistair Dixon 
Industry and Regulatory Affairs 

Ph +64 4 920 3098 (Wellington)         Telstra Clear Ltd 
Ph +64 29 912 4301 (mobile)                 PO Box 1271 
Ph +64 9 912 4301 (Auckland)             Centreport 
Fax +64 4 920 3588                                        Wellington 

alistair.dixon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade
Sent: Thursday, 10 August 2006 08:28
To: 'Cubberley, Maureen (CHT)'; pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Council GNSO'; 'John Jeffrey'; denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] FW: PDP Feb 06: Draft Agenda 10 August



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