RE: [registrars] ICANN response to reconsideration requests of Verisign and Dotster regarding the WLS service

[Paul Stahura <stahura@enom.com>]

I hope next time we begin 1.5 years of work of discussions,
consensus-building
and gathering, meetings all over the planet, teleconferences, polls, 
papers, congressional testimony, with hundreds if not thousands of people
involved,
that someone at ICANN will say up-front, that a consensus is not needed, 
that this or that issue does not need a bottom-up process,
that that same someone at ICANN will say up-front that ICANN will decide the
issue 
in the end without consensus or no matter what the consensus is.

Sure would save a ton of work.

Why do we go through all that to be told at the end that it was unnecessary?
Why did ICANN go through all that if they knew it was unnecessary before we
even started?
Was it for the chance that the consensus would've gone the way they voted
^H^H^H^H^H decided?

Bruce, as our representative, please report back on this question:
on all the other issues, working groups, etc. that are now before the board 
or that are currently underway and will be before the board in the next
year, 
for which of them will the decision be made regardless of the consensus?
For which issues is consensus unnecessary?  
I'd like to know up-front now so I can just badger the board members
directly on those.

Thanks,

Paul



-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] 
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 6:02 PM
To: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: [registrars] ICANN response to reconsideration requests of Verisign
and Dotster regarding the WLS service


Hello All,

I note that there is a special meeting of the ICANN Board on 2 June
2003.
http://www.icann.org/minutes/background-02jun03.htm

On the agenda are two reconsideration requests:
- a response to Dotsters request surrounding the WLS
http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc02-5.htm

- a response to Verisign's request surrounding the WLS
http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc02-6.htm

The logic makes interesting reading - especially the response to Dotster
regarding the need of ICANN to use consensus to change policy.

Here is a quote:
"Dotster is correct that the Board's decision to revise VeriSign's
registry agreements to allow it to offer the WLS through accredited
registrars was not made according to the procedures stated in subsection
4.3.1 of Dotster's registrar accreditation agreement for the creation of
"consensus policies" as defined there. But nothing in the registrar
accreditation agreement requires ICANN to make all of its policies
according to the "consensus policy" mechanism defined in that agreement.

Instead, the contractual role of the "consensus policies" under the
registrar accreditation agreement is to provide ICANN with an
alternative to require registrars to implement policies developed
through the ICANN process. Under subsection 4.1 of the registrar
accreditation agreement, registrars agree to comply with new or revised
specifications developed during the term of the agreement, provided they
are established according to a consensus policy process described in
subsection 4.3 and on topics prescribed in subsection 4.1.2.2 In
contrast to Dotster's contention that the registrar accreditation
agreement requires all of ICANN's policies to be created using the
procedures stated in subsection 4.3.1, the registrar accreditation
agreement makes it very clear that the consensus-policy mechanism is
only one way of defining additional obligations for registrars. See
subsection 4.2 ("specifications and policies may be established").3
"


Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
Melbourne IT