[Fwd: Re: [council] Regarding Item 3: Correspondence - Clarification sought by PDP-Feb06 task force]
-------- Message original --------Sujet: Re: [council] Regarding Item 3: Correspondence - Clarification sought by PDP-Feb06 task force Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:53:59 -0700 De: Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran@xxxxxxxxx> Pour: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Références: <18D21D6B-EFE8-42F2-9FC6-A4380309F02F@xxxxxxxxx> Bruce, As discussed in your message below, attached is a memo from the ICANN General Counsel to the GNSO Council regarding "Clarification sought by PDP-Feb06 task force." Thank you for your attention. I will be available on tomorrow's Council call to listen to any feedback or questions. Best Regards, Daniel Halloran Deputy General Counsel ICANN Attachment:
memo-to-GNSO-re-consensus-policies-20060927.pdf Begin forwarded message: > From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: 14 September 2006 200609140244 > To: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: [council] Regarding Item 3: Correspondence - Clarification > sought by PDP-Feb06 task force > > Hello All, > > With respect to the agenda topic: > >> >> Item 3: Correspondence >> >> - Clarification sought by PDP-Feb06 task force on whether the >> outcomes of the PDP would affect gTLD contracts in existence >> at the time the >> Board approves the policy. See >> http://www.gnso.icann.org/correspondence/cubberley-to-tonkin-2 >> 5aug06.pdf >> > > I had a phone conference with John Jeffrey and Dan Halloran of the > General Counsel's office, along with Denise Michel regarding this > agenda > item. > > John agreed to provide a written response to this request for > discussion > at our next Council call. > > I think there are really two quite separate issues that underlie the > question from the PDP-Feb06 task force. > > (1) Legally is a registry operator obligated to comply when the ICANN > Board approves a recommendation resulting from the PDP-Feb06 work. > Note that ICANN can only require businesses to comply with a policy > recommendation through its contracts with those businesses. These > contracts have limitations on what recommendations a business must > comply with. > > (2) Will the ICANN Board wait until the GNSO completes its work in > PDP-Feb 06 before approving anymore contracts. > > > I think it is reasonable for the General Counsel's office to provide > advice with respect to point (1). The current contracts may make it > difficult to apply or implement some new ICANN policies. It is > certainly a requirement under Annex A, clause 2 (e)(3) of the bylaws > that the GNSO consider policies that have "applicability". > > With respect to point (2) this is probably a discussion that needs to > happen with the ICANN Board. The GNSO did request that the Board wait > until approving the proposed .com agreement until the GNSO had a > chance > to consider all the issues through a PDP, and the Board decided to > approve the agreement. We are now in the same position again with > respect to biz, info, and org agreements. > > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin |