[council] FW: Motion from GNSO Council regarding the proposed .com agreement

[Marilyn Cade]

Two agenda items for our upcoming Council call:

1) Can we invite an update on the litigation and .com agreements for the
upcoming Council meeting? 

2) Also, it seems to me that the topic of how we are planning to address the
identified policy issues mentioned in our motion must be a priority of the
Council discussion.

I see four possible elements to address via policy, or "advice" at a minimum
for this discussion:
	"automatic/perpetual assumption of renewals"
	Approach to funding model changes
	Ceilings on registry prices 
	Adherence to consensus policy in negotiated agreements [e.g. the
failure to rely on the consensus policy for new registry services in the
proposed .com agreement]

Obviously, there is a timeliness issue which must be addressed, in terms of
how Council will deliver a short turn around on policy guidance/consensus
policy on the areas it agrees to address, per the motion approved, and sent
to the Board.

And, if this is my first email to any of you out there, Happy 2006! 

Regards, 

Marilyn



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 12:02 AM
To: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] FW: Motion from GNSO Council regarding the proposed .com
agreement

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin 
Sent: Thursday, 22 December 2005 4:01 PM
Subject: Motion from GNSO Council regarding the proposed .com agreement

To: Chair, ICANN Board
From: Chair, GNSO Council

Hello Vint,

Please pass onto the Board the following motion passed by the GNSO
Council in its meeting in Vancouver on Friday 2 Dec 2005.


"Whereas the GNSO constituencies participated in a review of the
proposed settlement and have detailed statements on issues of concern; 

Whereas the GNSO Council supports the conclusion of the litigation
between ICANN and Verisign; 

Whereas the GNSO Council does not support all articles within this
proposed settlement;

Whereas the GNSO Council believes that there are broader questions
raised in the proposed settlement that need to be first addressed by the
GNSO;

The GNSO Council resolves:

That the ICANN Board should postpone adoption of the proposed settlement
while the Council fully investigates the policy issues raised by the
proposed changes."

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin