RE: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>]

I think what Chuck is commenting on is the removal of the language stating
that issues involving purely contractual matters should not be subject to
the PDP.

In addition, if I may step in here, Chuck is commenting on the fact that the
NC (or whatever it is called in the future...oh yeah, the NC) can override
the ICANN staff's evaluation that an issue is beyond the scope of the PDP
(with 66% of the vote).  As initially proposed, the ICANN staff's judgment
should be final (only appealable to the Board) and engage the lengthy PDP
anyway.  Engaging in the PDP process despite the staff's determination that
such issues were beyond the scope seems awfully wasteful of time, money and
resources, and could lead to what has been referred to by many as "mission
creep."

 


-----Original Message-----
From: Bret Fausett [mailto:fausett@lextext.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2002 7:37 PM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package


Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> First of all, we have consistently tried to point out there needs to be a
> separation of users and producers.  And we have made clear that such a
> separation does not mean that users and producers do not at some point
have
> to come together.  It just is very ineffective to start together because
of
> the very divergent interests of the two groups.

There is absolutely no reason that "producers" can't collaborate on areas of
common interest prior to initiating a policy development process. Do what
you want in your constituencies and when you feel it's ready, THEN ask the
Names Council to begin the PDP. Even when the PDP is initiated, there's no
reason the two "producer" constituencies can't collaborate during the
initial constituency consultation period. I don't see the proposed structure
as in any way limiting the ability of those with common interests from
working together.
  
> Secondly, and this is one of the serious problems with the
recommendations,
> the GNSO should not be involved in issues that are outside of ICANN's
> mission.  In the next to last draft that I saw, there was some language to
> deal with this.  In the final document all such language was deleted.

What do you think the language added? It parroted word for word language in
many of the registry contracts. Since we were trying to develop a process
for the GNSO as a whole, not just the registries, it seemed out of place.
The omission of the language though doesn't mean you're still not protected
if that same language is in your contract. (The Board can't amend contracts
by itself, and the adoption of our recommendation would have no effect on
your contracts. They say what they say.)

      -- Bret       

--
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