what is a "policy issue" was RE: [council] Fw: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

["Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

colleagues:

I support the idea ( of NC deciding what IS a policy issue ), aqnd I agree
that the "2 constituencies" rule could or would lead to abuse.

I propose that "A majority vote of the Names Council" would determine if any
matter before the group is "a policy issue".

peter de Blanc

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
Erica Roberts
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 3:02 PM
To: Cochetti, Roger
Cc: council@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [council] Fw: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign
agreements


I think Milton has already expressed my sentiments - the key to ensuring
adequate consultation is EARLY consultation.  I would like to have been made
aware of the concerns of ICANN staff  about the 1999 Agreement before
negotiations with Verisign were begun - rather than after they were
complete.  Then I would have been satisfied that the consultations were
conducted in good faith - rather than simply aimed at supporting a fait
accompli.
However, the key now relates to the future. Gven the disagreement of what
constititues 'adequate consultation', it is clear that we need clarification
and some form of Standard Operating Procedure which provides just such a
clarification.

Finally, re the recognition of an issue as a 'policy issue'.  You say:
. Regarding a new procedure that you propose -- under which the Council
> would recognize any topic to be a matter of policy if two or more DNSO
> Constituencies asserted that it was -- needs to be carefully thought
> through.  Since the threshold for declaring any topic to be a matter of
> policy would be set so low under your proposal, it is not hard to see how
it
> could lead to abuses
I cant agree with you on this.  If any constituency as a whole considers
that an issue haas signifcant policy implications, I think we should take
that very seriously.  The different constituencies are, after all, made up
of stakeholders with different interests.  And any one constituency may have
a legitimate concern which doesnot impact on the interests of stakeholders
from other constituencies.  However, to avoid vexacious and irresponsible
behaviour by any one constituency, I suggested that at least two
constituencies must agree that an issue has policy implication.  I would
hesitate to suggest that we need to protect ourselves against simultaneous
vexacvious and irresponsible behaviour by two DNSO constituencies.  Tho
perhaps you are wiser (but more cynical!) than me.
I would be interested to hear the views of others.

erica
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cochetti, Roger" <RCochetti@verisign.com>
To: "'Erica Roberts'" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>
Cc: <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 8:11 AM
Subject: RE: [council] Fw: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign
agreements


> Erica-
>
> I'd like to comment on both the factual record and on the proposals
> contained in your note of yesterday.
>
> First, I do not think that the Council ever made "...it clear that the
> Internet community does not support Option B."  In fact, the closest that
> the Council came to specifically addressing the question of whether it
> supported Plan B or Plan A was its vote on Part B of the Philip Sheppard's
> resolution, which said in part that "...if forced to choose between the
> existing agreement or the revised agreement, as written, the NC
reluctantly
> chooses the existing agreement.".  The recorded vote on this item was 9 to
6
> to 1.
>
> As you know, the ICANN Bylaws provide that if the Council wishes to advise
> the ICANN Board on what it believes are matters of policy, then the
Council
> may do so by presenting a consensus position (two thirds of its nineteen
> members which would be 13 supporting the "consensus" position) or by
> presenting majority and minority positions (ten or more supporting the
> majority position and nine or less supporting the minority position) to
the
> ICANN Board.  Given that the Council vote expressing "reluctant" support
for
> Plan A recorded 9 favorable votes (and 6 negative votes), it would be
> difficult to say that the Council made "...it clear that the Internet
> community does not support Option B." or that "...the Bod disregarded this
> advice..."
>
> Later you assert that "...there was no adequate consultation process..."
> Reasonable people can disagree over how much consultation is "adequate",
> however we should not ignore the quite substantial consultations that
openly
> took place:
>
> a) The Names Council devoted a significant portion of one meeting and the
> entirety of a separate meeting to this topic; and
>
> b) Every one of the DNSO's seven Constituencies, as well as the DNSO
General
> Assembly, filed comments with the Names Council on this topic and
most --if
> not all-- of the Constituencies held one or more separate meetings on this
> topic.  Many of these DNSO Constituency meetings featured ICANN and/or
> VeriSign staff who answered questions and amplified on the proposed
> agreements; and
>
> c) The ICANN Board devoted a major part of its Public Comments Forum in
> Melbourne to this topic and then entertained additional public comments on
> this topic during its subsequent Board meeting; and
>
> d) ICANN hosted and considered a Web-based, Public Comments Forum on this
> topic beginning on March 1st, and this Web-based comment Forum generated
> around seven hundred public comments.
>
> In addition to the above, there were numerous meetings, briefings,
> exchanges, etc. that further served to explore this topic.  The above
> consultation process may not, in the view of some, have been adequate.
Even
> if you feel that it was "not adequate", it is hardly credible to ignore
the
> consultative process that did take place or fail to recognize it as having
> been substantial.  To whatever extent you feel that the consultative
process
> that did take place was not adequate, however, I think that the critique
can
> only be credible if it is specific.
>
> For example, you may feel that the Names Council should have conducted
more
> meetings on this topic (3 or 4 instead 2?).  You may feel that each DNSO
> Constituency should have been required to file more comments (White Papers
> instead of position papers?)  Whatever you feel was missing in the
> consultative process that made it inadequate should be specified so that
the
> rest of us can decide whether we agree or do not agree with what you would
> feel is necessary to have made this consultation "adequate".
>
> Finally, on your three proposals, we all want to strengthen the Council's
> credibility, but I doubt that vague complaints about a matter that ICANN
> management has already asserted is not a matter of policy will do much to
do
> so. Regarding a new procedure that you propose -- under which the Council
> would recognize any topic to be a matter of policy if two or more DNSO
> Constituencies asserted that it was -- needs to be carefully thought
> through.  Since the threshold for declaring any topic to be a matter of
> policy would be set so low under your proposal, it is not hard to see how
it
> could lead to abuses that would undermine the Council's credibility by
> forcing the Council to treat many matters as "policy" that most
> Constituencies would not.
>
> Roger
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erica Roberts [mailto:erica.roberts@bigpond.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 8:03 AM
> To: council@dnso.org
> Subject: [council] Fw: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign
> agreements
>
>
> I am v concerned that the recent action by the BoD re the proposed new
> Verisign Agreement.
> The BoD has failed to adequately consult with, and take into account the
> views of the Internet community expressed thru the NC.  The BoD requested
> input from the NC only under pressure and made it clear that there was no
> possibility of amending the proposed agreement.  However, when the NC made
> it clear that the Internet community does not support Option B, the BoD
> disrgarded this advice and agreed to an amended version of Option B.
> There was no adequate consultation process and the decision made by the
BoD
> does not reflect the advice provided to it by the NC. As I see it, we have
> three options before us:
> 1.  Write to the Board reiterating our expression of concern about the
lack
> of due process;
> 2.  Propose  a formal policy requiring an appropriate consultation process
> on all issues which are viewed by two or more DNSO constituencies as
> involving policy issues;
> 3:  Do nothing
>
>  If we accept Option 3 and do nothing, then  we will be taken to have
> consented to the Board action.
> Option 1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive and I propose that we ask the
> Chair to write to the BoD reiterating our concern about the lack of due
> process and move to develop a policy -  Standard Operating Procedeures -
> which detail the process to be followed by ICANN in relating to
consultation
> with th DNSO.
>
> erica
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric Dierker" <Eric@hi-tek.com>
> To: "DPF" <david@farrar.com>
> Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 7:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign agreements
>
>
> > Dear Names Council,
> >
> >     We ask that you endorse and pass this letter along to Verisign and
the
> Board
> > of Directors of ICANN.  We are not opposing the substance of the
> amendments and
> > or modifications to the agreements as we received them today, because we
> have not
> > had time to evaluate them.
> >     What we ask is that you grant a 30 day extension of the end of
> negotiation
> > date so that all of us can review and give input to the agreement.
> >     It is our hope that we be viewed as the advisory behind ICANN, that
> through
> > our public input we can help all parties understand and accomodate
public
> stake
> > holder opinion. We also believe that through this process we can help
> gather
> > support for the relationship between ICANN and Verisign.
> >     Thank you for any consideration you can give this important request
at
> this
> > time.
> >
> > The GA?
> >
> > I just see time is critical here so I offer this as a starting point for
a
> letter
> > to our council.
> >
> > My previous letters would go elsewhere in case there is confusion.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > DPF wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 2 Apr 2001 00:28:51 -0400, Peter de Blanc wrote:
> > >
> > > >to all-
> > > >
> > > >at the names council meeting a few days ago, i suggested that, in
> business,
> > > >"everything is negotiable". based on inputs from our constituencies,
we
> > > >proposed some changes that most of us could accept in order to give a
> > > >"go-ahead" for "option B". Yes, this is "option C"
> > > >
> > > >It is my (personal) feeling that verisign would rather have some DNSO
> > > >support behind any board decision to go with option B in the face of
> all the
> > > >comments supporting "status quo" or option A.
> > >
> > > Indeed.  What has happened is a logical move by Verisign.  One could
> > > argue that ICANN management should have said "hey we have publicly
> > > stated no changes are possible and if we are going to reverse that
> > > undertaking we also want you to agree to more time".  This is
> > > certainly what I would have done if an ICANN negotiator.
> > >
> > > >Now, of course, we have another last-minute change that does not
allow
> for
> > > >any DNSO input before the board's vote.
> > > >
> > > >I certainly hope there is a 30 day "cooling off" period before any
> decision.
> > >
> > > Indeed.  Is there any chance the Names Council could quickly pass a
> > > resolution asking the Board to request Verisign to agree to ask DOC
> > > for a 30 day extension?
> > >
> > > The changes to the agreement are welcome but it would be a terrible
> > > public policy example to agree to such changes with less than 24 hours
> > > to consider and analyse them.
> > >
> > > If Verisign will not agree to any extension I still believe Option A
> > > (status quo) is the safest option as at least with that we know what
> > > we are getting.
> > >
> > > If Verisign do agree to a 30 day delay then I have a growing
> > > confidence a win-win solution can be found.
> > >
> > > DPF
> > > --
> > > david@farrar.com
> > > ICQ 29964527
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >