Re: [council] Response from ICANN Board chair with regard to the proposed .biz, .info and .org agreements

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello all,

I appreciate the Board Chair taking the time to write to the Council
before the Sao Paulo meeting (and before the Board meeting scheduled
on November 22) in response to the questions raised by the Council,
and to keep us abreast of the current related developments within the
Board. 

The question pointed out by Norbert below is indeed a critical one.
We, and the ICANN Board, need to figure out _clearly_ what the
institutional weight of the GNSO Council is. If it is just one of the
undertermined various sources of inputs to the Board policy
decisions, why should we spend so much time and energy doing all this
work? The GNSO Council should then be dismantled, and everyone can
post an input, among others, whether individually or through the
constituencies (if they survive the Council,) whether publicly or
privately.

Now, the Board Chair may not have meant to imply this, as I suspect.
But then, there is an urgent need to clarify based on the ICANN
bylaws, rules, procedures and other statutory texts when applicable:

1) What are the sources of inputs that are legitimately entitled to
impact the Board's decisions?
2) Within those, what is the worth of the GNSO Council in the Board's
 decision-making procedures.

Regards,

Mawaki


--- Norbert Klein <nhklein@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> Thanks, Bruce.
> 
> I still fail to understand clearly what this section implies:
> 
> = =
> The Board receives inputs from many sources and these inputs are
> frequently conflicting in their character. The Board is obligated
> to
> reach conclusions despite variations in the recommendations it
> receives.
> If the Board conclusions differ from recommendations of the GNSO,
> it
> will be a consequence of considering all advice received including
> that
> of the GNSO Council.
> = =
> 
> How is the role of the GNSO Council seen by the Board - just as ONE
> of
> the "many sources" from which the Board receives inputs? What is
> the
> very special role the GNSO and its Council has within the formal
> structures of ICANN?
> 
> If we do not get this point clearer in principle - and not only in
> relation with the specific issues under discussion at present,
> there may
> be a continuous repetitions of the kind of discussion we have now.
> 
> How do other colleagues in the Council see this?
> 
> Norbert Klein
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce Tonkin wrote:
> > From: Chair, ICANN Board
> >
> > To:  GNSO Council
> >
> >
> > 20 November 2006
> >
> > To GNSO Council Members:
> >
> > As we approach the meeting in Sao Paulo, I wanted to briefly
> report to
> > you on Board discussions that have occurred during the past
> several
> > months - especially with regard to the proposed .biz, .info and
> .org
> > agreements.  I thought that a communication at this point would
> useful
> > given the amount of discussion that is taking place in many
> quarters
> > surrounding these agreements, registry agreements in general and
> the
> > domain markets.
> >
> > The Board has paid careful attention to the discussions reported
> to us
> > of the GNSO Council members (and also among the constituency
> groups)
> > regarding the various gTLD agreements.  We have followed the
> progress of
> > the committee work on the PDP that discusses the terms of
> registry
> > agreements (the "Feb 06 PDP") and also the work occurring on the
> PDP for
> > new gTLDs (including the term of reference having to do with
> contractual
> > terms).  The Board appreciates that the GNSO is considering many
> complex
> > issues. Recognizing this, the Board asked staff to fund expert
> financial
> > analysis to examine the market and answer questions such as
> whether a
> > medium sized registry such as .org or .info has monopoly power
> under any
> > practical definition.
> >
> > We have also read all the community comment concerning the recent
> > registry agreements.  The Board has engaged in many detailed
> discussions
> > that carefully considered exchanges on the council list and in
> on-line
> > forums.
> >
> > We have also read, considered carefully and debated whether the
> GNSO
> > resolution that the vote on these latest registry agreements be
> > postponed should be adopted also as Board policy.  
> >
> > Our discussions lead me to a conclusion that a delay in a vote is
> not
> > justified by either a pending policy development process or
> awaiting
> > additional public comment.  ICANN is compelled to implement a
> > Board-approved consensus policy but is also compelled to carry on
> > business as new policy is being developed.  The timeline for
> approval of
> > the pending agreements cannot, in fairness to the parties, carry
> on up
> > to the last months of an existing agreement.  The process has to
> > conclude sometime before the termination date.
> >
> > Given that the Board may vote against the presently proposed
> agreement
> > (and therefore additional time might be required to settle the
> issue), a
> > vote should be taken as soon as the Board has the information it
> feels
> > is required and is ready to vote on the proposals.
> >
> > Having said that, there is no firm plan to taken a vote at the 22
> > November meeting.  As you know, the Board has scheduled and
> discussed
> > the proposed agreements at previous meetings.  At each meeting,
> in
> > response to Council and other discussion, the board opted for
> additional
> > time for consideration of comment and discussion of the proposed
> > agreements between the parties and to allow further public
> comment to be
> > heard and considered.  As a result, there have been changes made
> to the
> > proposed agreements.  Votes are not taken until there is a sense
> that
> > the Board is prepared to do so.  That sense is developed through
> > discussion on email lists and during meetings.  
> >
> > There may or may not be a vote on these agreements at the
> upcoming
> > meeting.
> >
> > Neither outcome should be a surprise.  I wished to write,
> however, to
> > tell you that the Board (including me) consider input from the
> Council
> > carefully.  A conclusion that differs from council member advice
> does
> > not indicate the Board "ignored" the advice. The Board receives
> inputs
> > >from many sources and these inputs are frequently conflicting in
> their
> > character.  The Board is obligated to reach conclusions despite
> > variations in the recommendations it receives.  If the Board
> conclusions
> > differ from recommendations of the GNSO, it will be a consequence
> of
> > considering all advice received including that of the GNSO
> Council. 
> >
> > The Board looks forward to the conclusion of the Council's work
> on the
> > very important PDPs now underway.  Of course, the Board also
> continues
> > to be interested in your individual perspectives on these issues.
> > Please let Denise Michel know if there is any further information
> or
> > support required.  She will ensure that you are kept closely
> apprised of
> > our actions.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> >
> > Vint Cerf
> > ICANN Board Chair
> >   
> 



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Cheap talk?
Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
http://voice.yahoo.com