Re: [ga] Has ICANN consulted the GAC about .biz/info/org?

["Prophet Partners Inc." <Domains@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi George,

If the discussion of the proposed .biz/.info/.org contracts is postponed to
the São Paulo meetings in December, we'll actually be able to get some
insight into what ICANN board members think about these negotiations. As we
all know, commentary on this topic from ICANN board members to the GA
mailing list have been deafening. Up until now, everything has been
happening behind closed doors with significant delays in reporting and a
lack of transparency. Real time captioning of the São Paulo meetings would
encourage more accountability from ICANN to the public that it is entrusted
to protect.

Sincerely,
Ted
Prophet Partners Inc.
http://www.ProphetPartners.com
http://www.Premium-Domain-Names.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George Kirikos" <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <revised-biz-info-org-agreements@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <john.jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx>; <vint@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 1:46 AM
Subject: [ga] Has ICANN consulted the GAC about .biz/info/org?


> Hello,
>
> As at the time of this message, there is no agenda posted for the
> November 14, 2006 Board Meeting:
>
> http://www.icann.org/minutes/
>
> Article III, Section 4 of the ICANN bylaws mentions:
>
> http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm
>
> "At least seven days in advance of each Board meeting (or if not
> practicable, as far in advance as is practicable), a notice of such
> meeting and, to the extent known, an agenda for the meeting shall be
> posted."
>
> Given the lack of an agenda posted 7 days in advance, I presume no
> material decisions will take place in that meeting, especially
> concerning the proposed .biz/info/org contracts. This would also be
> consistent with Section 6, Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the bylaws,
> namely:
>
> "Where both practically feasible and consistent with the relevant
> policy development process, an in-person public forum shall also be
> held for discussion of any proposed policies as described in Section
> 6(1)(b) of this Article, prior to any final Board action."
>
> i.e. ICANN should wait until the in-person meetings in Sao Paulo a few
> weeks from now, as that would be practically feasible, and especially
> given that there would be an "imposition of fees", as discussed in
> Section 6, Paragragh 1 of Article III.
>
> Section 6, Paragraph 1.c also mentions that ICANN shall:
>
> "in those cases where the policy action affects public policy concerns,
> to request the opinion of the Governmental Advisory Committee and take
> duly into account any advice timely presented by the Governmental
> Advisory Committee on its own initiative or at the Board's request."
>
> I've not seen anything posted by ICANN regarding GAC's opinion on the
> policy concerns raised by these proposed contracts. Has the Board
> consulted the GAC at all on this, to meet their requirements as per the
> ICANN Bylaws? If their opinion has not yet been sought, this would be
> yet another reason to further delay a decision on these proposed
> contracts.
>
> My guess would be that the GAC would support competitive tender
> processes for operation of the registries for fixed-length terms, like
> other standard government contracts, with no presumptive renewal. This
> would lead to lower prices for consumers, given the much lower costs
> we've seen for computer hardware and bandwidth. Hopefully the GAC will
> be able to provide their insights before the Sao Paulo meetings.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/