[council] Clarification of Comments

[Ross Rader]

I want to ensure that my remarks today concerning the gTLD registry 
agreements are very clear. My point is twofold;

a) that the GNSO needs to properly consider the policy implications of 
these agreements.

b) that there is a process by which we do so.

I've come to understand that there is some level of concern, external to 
the GNSO, about the appropriateness of the GNSO considering these 
matters. My response to this concern is that if we are unable to 
consider these issues, we should reconsider whether or not there is a 
continued role for the GNSO.

These agreements govern the operations, assignment and management of a 
specific gTLD. Not coincidentally, these are the same areas of concern 
that comprised the original mandate of the DNSO. This alone should be 
sufficient grounds for Council to proceed with the work contemplated. 
But, if further justification is necessary, a quick review of the 
concerns raised by the various constituencies and advisory committees 
over the past 60 days will demonstrate that these agreements carry many 
policy implications - implications which are clearly within the scope of 
concern for the GNSO.

I continue to fully support the Council resolution "that the ICANN Board 
should postpone adoption of the proposed settlement
while the Council fully investigates the policy issues raised by the 
proposed changes" without reservation or qualification.

That said, the work undertaken as a result of this resolution should be 
carried out according to the processes we've agreed to. In our policy 
development process, the next step is to request the creation of an 
issues report from the Staff Manager. The Staff Manager must create an 
issues report for us within 15 days. I don't believe it is appropriate 
for us to presume that this obligation will not be met.  In the event 
that we are unable to execute the process per the requirements of the 
bylaws, we should consider what our alternatives are, and proceed in a 
way that least offends those bylaws. In other words, if the Staff 
Manager informs Council that we can't get what we need to do our when in 
a time frame thats meaningful, then we should look at other options - 
retaining outside help, etc.

Thank you again for your attention to this important issue. If there is 
anything that I can further clarify, please let me know.

-ross