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

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

John, and TF members
To clarify a few points, first, consensus is not unanimity.  Secondly, I see
no reason that this TF cannot fulfill its work within the timelines of '06.
additional resources may be needed to do that, and I would assume that ICANN
would want to, and would support the needed resources to policy development.
Just to be sure I understood the financial challenges, I reviewed the
Operational Plan and the budget last night. I'm pretty confident that the
resources can be found in the budget to support the Policy Development
Process. 

When I accepted this TF assignment, I certainly budgeted time on my calendar
for the time needed -- I presently spend 1 1/2 hours every two weeks on
WHOIS on TF calls; I spend additional time outside of that TF on that topic.
I spend the needed time to review materials and participate in the '05 TF. I
budgeted the time to do that. I assume that we should spend at least 2 hours
on a call, twice a month, on this TF, with outside time to support that. 

When I co-chaired the WHOIS TF, and chaired the Transfers TF, we met twice a
week, for 2 hours each meeting to accomplish our work.... that was what was
needed, the stakeholders stepped up to the challenge. I am confident that
the stakeholders can do the same on this TF. 

I am not prejudging the outcomes. It is possible that there would be only
one policy recommendation, or 4, or 6 -- don't overreact to that forecast,
it is merely an illustration. BUT, the point is that we have a PDP, and we
authorized it, and it is legitimate, and we should fulfill it. 

Again, I have read all the materials, and the statements made in various for
a, and I see fulsome support from ICANN to the bottom up participation model
that ICANN was founded on. I don't see a problem  here, other than
identifying needed resources, getting the funding allocated, and doing the
work.

Consensus is not unanimity. But it is consensus. 

Marilyn

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Bret Fausett
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 12:57 AM
To: 'Marilyn Cade'; 'John Jeffrey'; 'Cubberley, Maureen ((CHT))';
pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Council GNSO'
Cc: 'Denise Michel'
Subject: RE: [council] RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] FW: PDP Feb 06: Draft Agenda 10
August

> 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