<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV class=RTE>
<P>thanks, Bruce.</P>
<P> </P>
<P>I note that it is critical that the Council open a discussion on what those broader policy issues are, so that the Board does not disregard the role of Council, nor Council's input. To be quite fair, it is our task now to identify and begin to address how we will "address" those policy issues. </P>
<P> </P>
<P>I see at least three</P>
<P>1) new regisgtry services MUST follow the PDP approved. Exceptions should not be negotiated via contract, regardless of whom the negotiation is with.</P>
<P> </P>
<P>SHOULD there be problems with the consensus policy approved it is the task of the ICANN staff to return to the Council with those problems. Thus, we seem to need to be clearer on how any variances in consensus policy are addressed. And to be responsive to the need to modify Consensus policy, when waranteed.</P>
<P>2) Renewal presumption: Council needs to undertake consensus policy, or at least policy guidance, on the topic </P>
<P> </P>
<P>3)price caps/or related topics</P>
<P> </P>
<P>are there other topics that we need to be discussing now? I think that it is important to be demonstrating to the Board taht we are not only sending along a message to them, we are undertaking our role and responsibilities.</P>
<P>I would ask that other Councilors contribute to the identififcation fo the issues, adding to, or clarifying, and perhaps we can work on this via email over the next 2-3 weeks, with the commitment to have a work plan identified by the January Counicl meeting. </P>
<P> </P>
<P>We wouldn't want the Board to vote on a revised settlement document, and be unaware that the Council has active policy work underway. </P>
<P> </P>
<P>Marilyn </P>
<P><BR><BR> </P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #a0c6e5 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 11px; FONT-FAMILY: tahoma,sans-serif">
<HR color=#a0c6e5 SIZE=1>
<DIV></DIV>From: <I>"Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au></I><BR>To: <I><council@gnso.icann.org></I><BR>Subject: <I>[council] FW: Motion from GNSO Council regarding the proposed .com agreement</I><BR>Date: <I>Thu, 22 Dec 2005 16:01:41 +1100</I><BR>><BR>><BR>>-----Original Message-----<BR>>From: Bruce Tonkin<BR>>Sent: Thursday, 22 December 2005 4:01 PM<BR>>Subject: Motion from GNSO Council regarding the proposed .com agreement<BR>><BR>>To: Chair, ICANN Board<BR>>From: Chair, GNSO Council<BR>><BR>>Hello Vint,<BR>><BR>>Please pass onto the Board the following motion passed by the GNSO<BR>>Council in its meeting in Vancouver on Friday 2 Dec 2005.<BR>><BR>><BR>>"Whereas the GNSO constituencies participated in a review of the<BR>>proposed settlement and have detailed
statements on issues of concern;<BR>><BR>>Whereas the GNSO Council supports the conclusion of the litigation<BR>>between ICANN and Verisign;<BR>><BR>>Whereas the GNSO Council does not support all articles within this<BR>>proposed settlement;<BR>><BR>>Whereas the GNSO Council believes that there are broader questions<BR>>raised in the proposed settlement that need to be first addressed by the<BR>>GNSO;<BR>><BR>>The GNSO Council resolves:<BR>><BR>>That the ICANN Board should postpone adoption of the proposed settlement<BR>>while the Council fully investigates the policy issues raised by the<BR>>proposed changes."<BR>><BR>>Regards,<BR>>Bruce Tonkin<BR>><BR>><BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></div></html>