<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I should apologize for having typed the
email below on my blackberry. NO spell check. My apologies for the spelling
errors. Hopefully, they did not obscure the concerned request. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Marilyn <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> Marilyn Cade
[mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com] <br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Sunday, October 22, 2006
4:07 PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> daniel.halloran@icann.org;
council@gnso.icann.org<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> PDP-Feb06 Terms of
Reference and the "Picket Fence"/suggestion to Council/ICANN</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Dear Dan<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>I
appreciate seeing this post, since COuncil and its TF have been
waiting for a report/supporting materials that we know now are not being
developed. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Decisions
of this nature happen in an organization. timeliness of hearing about such
a possibilty is critical. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>However,
I am both disappointed that you didn't give us this information on the GNSO
Council call, so that we could have discussed options with you, and
disappointed that it took so long to find out that the staff would not be able,
for whatever reason, to fulfill the Council's request.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>While the
nature of Council's request was initially broader, I raise to you, the
Council Chair, and the Council, the potential to modify the request. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>I suggest
taht we ask Dan for a simple documentation of whether and how the picket
fence issues are applied. Without comparison, or contrast, and without any
discussion of in or out of scope. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>As an
elected Councilor, I am spending a lot of time, as an unpaid volunteer, on the
TF adn on the Council reading contracts adn reveiwing materials. I am not paid
by anyone to do this work and am not in any way repesenting any clients who
have an interest in the outcome. I am an elected BC councilor and my
responsibilties are to represent the interests of business users. this is
really a plea to have more staff support to help the TF and the GNSO Council do
their job. We can certainly continue to drill through this without such support
and that may be necessary. The time demands become quickly unreasonably burdensome,
however. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Just
having the sections identified, as you did earlier, in the rather robust even
if not easy to print document, was a great help. It is still a great tool. I do
think that it is possible to improve the useability of that resource [i have a
couple of ideas of how you might do that so it can be printed, and one of them
comes from my long years of dealing with side by sides in policy matters as
routinely prepared by legal teams; and two: can you do the simpler form of the
document requested? and by when could you do it? <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>We really
have to get to an improved interaction in the very near term. Ideally, having
encountered the situation that you identified, we would have a conf. call with
you adn the Council and problem solve. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>I respect
that you are busy however, really, it woudl have been better to have told
the Council on the call of this situation. taht way we could have problem
solved. Getting an email after the Council has met, when we cannot discuss this
with you and problem solve is disappointing and not an effective way to improve
our own effectiveness. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>We can
try to improve the willingness to "team work " on our side, perhaps
by having the flexibiilty of calling a short urgent discussion by conf. call
with more flexibiity. that way, you can more easily, and effectively
discuss options with the Councilors. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>I do
greatly appreciate your efforts; perhaps my suggestions offer a path forward. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Marilyn
Cade<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>BC
Councilor, and Rapporteur to Group A, PDP-Feb06<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #A0C6E5 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;
margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=1
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:8.5pt;font-family:Tahoma'>
<hr size=1 width="100%" noshade color="#a0c6e5" align=center>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=1 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:8.5pt;
font-family:Tahoma'>From: <i><span style='font-style:italic'>Daniel
Halloran <daniel.halloran@icann.org></span></i><br>
To: <i><span style='font-style:italic'>council@gnso.icann.org</span></i><br>
Subject: <i><span style='font-style:italic'>[council] PDP-Feb06
Terms of Reference and the "Picket Fence"</span></i><br>
Date: <i><span style='font-style:italic'>Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:43:24
-0700</span></i><br>
>Bruce,<br>
><br>
>This note is with respect to the resolution from the GNSO Council on <br>
> 28 September 2006:<br>
><br>
>"The GNSO Council resolves:<br>
><br>
>a) To instruct the PDPFeb06 task force to continue its work, to <br>
>appoint an interim chair<br>
><br>
>b) To instruct staff to propose a work schedule in agreement with <br>
>the interim chair and Task Force this week and carry it out<br>
><br>
>c) To ask the General Counsel within 14 days to list all ICANN <br>
>agreements sections on consensus policy<br>
><br>
>d) To ask the General Counsel within 14 days to compare and contrast <br>
> the PDP06 Terms of Reference with the so –called
"picket fence" <br>
>consensus policy areas and provide a without prejudice assessment of <br>
> likelihood of in or out of scope indicating uncertainty as <br>
>necessary.<br>
><br>
>[1] List all ICANN agreements sections on consensus policy<br>
><br>
>General Counsel's office has sent tables to the PDP-Feb06 Task Force <br>
> on October 4 and October 9 providing an overview and a <br>
>comprehensive listing of all the relevant agreement
provisions. <br>
>The complete set of contractual provisions is included in a <br>
>document currently posted on the GNSO Drafts and Working
Documents" <br>
>page at <http:// gnso.icann.org/drafts/>. The General
Counsel's <br>
>office would appreciate any feedback Council members could offer
to <br>
>make those documents more useful for you.<br>
><br>
>[2] Compare and contrast the PDP06 Terms of Reference with the so- <br>
>called "picket fence" consensus policy areas and provide a
without <br>
>prejudice assessment of likelihood of in or out of scope
indicating <br>
>uncertainty as necessary<br>
><br>
>The Council's second request turns out to be much more complex -- in <br>
> effect the Council has asked for legal opinions on hundreds
of <br>
>complex questions: the terms of reference for PDP-Feb06 include <br>
>eleven (11) separate questions (e.g. whether or not there should be <br>
>a policy guiding renewal, whether or not there should be a
policy <br>
>guiding registry fees to ICANN, etc.), and some versions of the <br>
>"picket fence" of policy topics for which a Registry Operator has
an <br>
> ongoing contractual obligation to comply with New or Revised
ICANN <br>
> Specifications and Policies include ten (10) or more
different <br>
>categories of topics. The "compare and contrast"
exercise the <br>
>Council requested requires first speculating what sort of <br>
>recommendation might come out of the PDP on each of the eleven <br>
>questions, and then hypothesizing whether or not such a <br>
>recommendation might fall under one or more of the ten or so <br>
>categories of topics for consensus policies. This task is
further <br>
>complicated by the fact that there is no one formulation of "the" <br>
>picket fence, but instead the topics for consensus policies vary <br>
>from contract to contract. Some contracts (.AERO,
COOP, .MUSEUM, <br>
>.NET, and the proposed new contracts for .BIZ, .COM, INFO and <br>
>.ORG) also include not just a list of subjects that are agreed
to <br>
>be within the "picket fence" set of topics for
policies but also a <br>
>list of topics that are expressly agreed to be outside the
"picket <br>
>fence" of topics for policies.<br>
><br>
>Recent agreements have identified five main policy areas where
a <br>
>Registry Operator has a contractual obligation to comply with new or <br>
> revised policies:<br>
><br>
>(1) issues for which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably <br>
> necessary to facilitate interoperability, Security and/or <br>
>Stability of the Internet or DNS;<br>
><br>
>(2) functional and performance specifications for the provision
of <br>
>Registry Services;<br>
><br>
>(3) Security and Stability of the registry database for the TLD;<br>
><br>
>(4) registry policies reasonably necessary to implement
Consensus <br>
>Policies relating to registry operations or registrars; or<br>
><br>
>(5) resolution of disputes regarding the registration of domain <br>
>names (as opposed to the use of such domain names).<br>
><br>
>This compares with the six main topics of PDP-Feb06:<br>
><br>
>1. Registry Agreement Renewal<br>
><br>
>2. Relationship between registry agreements and consensus policies<br>
><br>
>3. Policy for price controls for registry services<br>
><br>
>4. ICANN fees<br>
><br>
>5. Uses of registry data<br>
><br>
>6. Investments in development and infrastructure<br>
><br>
>The majority of the topics above seem to relate to the framework
of <br>
>the registry agreement itself, rather than to the set of five topics <br>
> areas where a Registry Operator must comply with new or
revised <br>
>policies after the signing of the agreement. The topics above
would <br>
> appear to be most relevant in the development of a new
framework <br>
>registry agreement for future negotiations.<br>
><br>
>The Council's resolution indicated that these requested legal <br>
>opinions could be offered by the ICANN General Counsel's office <br>
>"without prejudice," but in reality there is no such thing as
a <br>
>"policy-development privilege" ... any statements that
ICANN's <br>
>lawyers make on a public mailing list about the interpretation
of <br>
>ICANN's contracts or the applicability of ICANN's policies could
be <br>
>admissible if relevant in any current or future litigation involving <br>
> ICANN. The initial Issues Report for PDP-Feb06
<http:// <br>
>gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/issues-report-02feb06.pdf> <br>
>included the General Counsel's opinion that the focus of the PDP
as <br>
>initially framed by the Council was not "properly within the scope <br>
>of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the
GNSO." The <br>
> Council subsequently restated its intended focus in its adopted
<br>
>terms of reference <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/tor-
<br>
>pdp-28feb06.html>, but it remains difficult to speculate whether
or <br>
>not particular hypothetical recommendations that could be made by <br>
>the task force would be within the scope of the ICANN policy <br>
>process or the "picket fence" of topics for policies
in ICANN's <br>
>agreements. In light of the variations in the Registry
Agreements <br>
>and the lack of a specific policy recommendation to the ICANN <br>
>Board, the General Counsel's office cannot provide any more <br>
>specific information at this time.<br>
><br>
>I hope the above information is helpful. Please let me know if
you <br>
>have any questions or if I can be of any other assistance.<br>
><br>
>Best regards,<br>
>Daniel Halloran<br>
>Deputy General Counsel<br>
>ICANN<br>
><br>
></span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>