RE: [reg-com] Questions for General Counsel's office from GNSO

[Marc Schneiders <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It would be productive, I think, if it wouldn't be limited to a one
time question one time answer session, but that we could discuss
things on the list. But I am not sure this would work out with your
time and schedule, John.

Marc Schneiders

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004, at 15:52 [=GMT-0700], John Jeffrey wrote:

>
> Who is the point of contact (within the GNSO) to clarify some of these
> questions?  Or should we set up a discussion with the task force?
>
> John O. Jeffrey
> General Counsel
> ICANN
> Jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx
> +1.310.301.5834 direct
> +1.310.404.6001 mobile
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-reg-com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-reg-com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of GNSO SECRETARIAT
> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 1:28 AM
> To: reg-com
> Subject: [reg-com] Questions for General Counsel's office from GNSO
>
> Posted as requested by Barbara Roseman, ICANN Staff Manager GNSO Secretariat
>
> John and Dan,
>
> The GNSO Council working as the task force on the Approval Process for New
> or Changed Registry Services has developed a process flow that outlines the
> key decisions and processes involved in evaluating proposed changes to
> Registry services. These can be found at:
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registry-services/approval-process-24mar04.pdf,
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registry-services/quick-look-24mar04.pdf, and
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registry-services/detailed-review-24mar04.pdf.
>
> These are some of the questions that the task force has developed in their
> discussions. They fall into a few broad categories:
>
> 1) Approval of change requirements
> 	a) Do all changes that require approval require Board approval?
> 	b) If there are situations that do not require Board approval, are
> those clearly defined?
>
> 2) Criteria of evaluation
> 	a) Which of the broad criteria identified by the task force fall
> within ICANN's purview as determined by ICANN's Mission, Bylaws, and
> relevant contracts?
> 	b) How can these broad criteria be most usefully defined for ICANN
> staff to use in the approval process? (Bruce has suggested that I prepare a
> draft of how staff would like to see these criteria applied as elements of
> the "quick look" and "detailed look" processes. This is being prepared.)
>
> The list of criteria broadly outlined by the taskforce includes:
> Adherence to standards:
> - Does it comply with Internet standards or de-facto standards
> - Does it require open or closed standards to use
> - Consistency with the end-to-end Internet protocol principle (= de-facto
> nature)
> - Does it require users to use a closed standard software
>
> Security and stability
> - Does it disrupt the Internet
> - Does it affect other protocols
> - Does it cause cost at the edge
> - Could it be offered closer to the edge of the Internet
> - Are the effects to the users at large acceptable
> - Do overall benefits to the community outweigh any negative impact
> - Predictability, do we understand how it will affect applications and
> users, and how it affects stability
> - Reliability - Is the change reversible, what is the cost of reversing
>
> Impact on third parties
> - Consequences of third party reaction
> - Does it affect rights of stakeholders - e.g privacy, competition rights
> - Does it affect all users without choice
> - Does it change expectations of users
> - Does it only affect the registrant of the stld versus users of the stld
> - Could it harm legitimate interests (e.g intellectual property)
> - What is the cost of failure to third parties (impacted stakeholders)
> - Does it cause legal conflicts (e.g with local laws relating to disclosure
> of personal information)
>
> Degree of community support
> - Whether the service has been approved by sponsors community
>
> Market forces
> - Can the market measure whether good/bad idea, is there choice
> - Does size matter (market power)
> - competition analysis
>
>
> 3) Appeals process
> 	a) Are the existing appeals processes defined in the Bylaws
> sufficient to address the issues likely to arise during appeals related to
> the approval process (Reconsideration, IRP)?
> 	In which instances (as outlined in the process flow) would an
> appellant use Reconsideration as opposed to the IRP?
> 	b) In Reconsideration (Bylaws, Article IV, Section 2) while there is
> a defined period for determining whether to proceed with Reconsideration (30
> days), there is no defined time for the work of the Reconsideration
> Committee once they have taken up an issue for review. Would it be possible
> to write specific timelines into either the Reconsideration process or the
> Approval process for Reconsideration appeals relating to the approval of
> new/changed registry services to facilitate timely evaluation of proposals?
> 	c) If the existing review processes are not appropriate for use in
> relation to the approval process, how should a new appeals process be
> developed?
>