ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

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

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

  • To: "'Marilyn Cade'" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'John Jeffrey'" <john.jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Cubberley, Maureen \(\(CHT\)\)'" <MCubberley@xxxxxxxxx>, <pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] FW: PDP Feb 06: Draft Agenda 10 August
  • From: "Bret Fausett" <bfausett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 21:56:49 -0700
  • Cc: "'Denise Michel'" <denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <BAY105-DAV809B16D76759E27438F03D34A0@phx.gbl>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Aca8DCHWJ9R9d3GYS0WM/GLgzQe3JQAFWpZwAATkJDA=
> I am informed that there has been a long running discussion 
> dating back to the beginning of ICANN and that there is a 
> disparity of opinion regarding the relationship between the 
> policy issues and specific contractual agreements.  

ICANN starting pushing this idea that 'contracts aren't policy' back when it
tried to sell the community on the first ICANN-Network Solutions contract.
Since that time, the "disparity of opinion" has been between Joe Sims,
trying to sell a series of unpalatable NetSol-Verisign contracts to the
community, and everyone else. The fact that the disparity has been
"long-running" is more an indicator of the legal staff's recalcitrance than
a sign of a legitimate dispute among equal factions in the stakeholder
community. The "new" ICANN has the opportunity to break this cycle and bring
some sense to the debate. 

    -- Bret
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>