Task Force Report

DRAFT

PDPFeb06

18 February 2007

Author: Dr Liz Williams

 

Abstract

This is a DRAFT Task Force Report for the Generic Names Supporting Organisation’s policy development process on Policies for Contractual Conditions:  Existing Registries (PDPFeb06).

Document Status

18 February 2007:  draft Task Force Report.

 

Contents

1.    Introduction                                                                                                              4

2.    Recommendations                                                                                                   5

3.    Term of Reference 1A:  Registry agreement renewal                  7

4.    Term of Reference 1B:  Registry agreement renewal standardization           7

5.    Term of Reference 2A:  Relationship between registry agreements and consensus policies                                                                                                      8

6.    Term of Reference 2B:  Relationship between registry agreements and consensus policies and delegation of responsibility                        9

7.    Term of Reference 3: Policy for price controls for registry services        9

8.    Term of Reference 4:  ICANN fees                                                               10

9. Term of Reference 5:  Uses of Registry Data                                       11

10.    Term of Reference 6:  Investment in development and infrastructure        12

Annex One – Policy Development Process Background Information            13

Annex Two -- Participation Data                                                                          15

Annex Three -- Constituency Statements and Rapporteur Group Input      21

References                                                                                                                     52

 

Definitions

PDP:  Policy Development Process – see http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm#AnnexA for full explanation.

 

Acknowledgments

This document was produced as a result of the consultations of the PDP Feb 06 Task Force.  The full record of the group’s work is found at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/ and the mailing list archives at http://forum.icann.org/lists/pdp-pcceg-feb06/. 

Meetings have been open to observers and remote participation in meetings has been made available.  For full information on participation, consult the charts found below.

 

 

1.      Introduction

1.1    This is the draft Task Force Report for the Policies for Contractual Conditions for Existing Registries policy development process (PDPFeb06).   The final draft of the Task Force Report is due to be submitted to the GNSO Council prior to the March 2007 ICANN meeting in Portugal.  It is expected that the final drafting of the Report will take place at the Task Force’s face-to-face meeting in Los Angeles on 24 & 25 February 2007.

1.2    The work of the Task Force was guided by Section 7 of the ICANN GNSO policy development process (http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28Feb06.htm#AnnexA). This Report reflects comprehensive information gathering from a wide range of sources, including the preparation of Expert Materials[1] by ICANN Staff and the use of two Task Force Rapporteur Groups who did separate streams of work for presentation to the Task Force as a whole. 

1.3    According to the PDP guidelines, the Task Force Report must include:

. “1. A clear statement of any Supermajority Vote position of the task force on the issue;
2. If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear statement of all positions espoused by task force members submitted within the twenty-day timeline for submission of constituency reports. Each statement should clearly indicate (i) the reasons underlying the position and (ii) the constituency(ies) that held the position;
3. An analysis of how the issue would affect each constituency of the task force, including any financial impact on the constituency;
4. An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary to implement the policy; and
5. The advice of any outside advisors appointed to the task force by the Council, accompanied by a detailed statement of the advisors' (i) qualifications and relevant experience; and (ii) potential conflicts of interest.”

1.4    The following sections set out the proposed policy recommendations and identify the level of Constituency support for each of the recommendations.

1.5    The Registry Constituency, prior to the commencement of the formal PDP proceedings, issued a statement and a preface to that statement which set out its objections to the process.  Those two statements can be found at http://www.gtldregistries.org/news/2006/2006-03-02-01 and http://www.gtldregistries.org/news/2006/2006-03-02-02.pdf.

1.6    The Registry Constituency issued a further statement on 27 April 2006 setting out the Constituency’s ongoing objection to the Task Force’s work (http://www.gtldregistries.org/news/2006/2006-04-27-01).

1.7.   On 3 January 2007, the Registry Constituency sent in a formal response to the straw poll recommendations which are listed below (http://www.gtldregistries.org/news/2007/2007-01-03-01.pdf).

1.8    The Registry Constituency has, throughout the policy development process, expressed its opposition to the Terms of Reference, to the potential applicability of any of the proposed policy recommendations and to the work of the Task Force as whole.

 

 

2.      Recommendations

2.1  There were six Terms of Reference with several suggestions for possible policy recommendations relating to each Term of Reference.  The following table sets out each of the proposed policy recommendations and shows where each Constituency has voted.  A confirmation email was sent to the PDPFeb06 email list on 25 January 2007[2] seeking confirmation that the table accurately represented the views of each Constituency.  A further note was sent on 31 January 2007 confirming that, if no responses were received by 2 February 2007, the chart would stand.  No responses to that email were received and the chart is reproduced below[3].    In the discussion paragraphs below, a fuller description is provided for each of the proposed recommendations.

2.2   The Registry Constituency has voiced its opposition to the majority of the recommendations, arguing that the proposals are out of scope and, even if the recommendations were agreed upon, they would not be retroactively applied to existing registry contracts.

2.3   Leaving those views aside, and referring to the advice of the General Counsel’s office[4] in response to correspondence from Task Force Chair Maureen Cubberley, the table below shows which Constituency supported what draft recommendations.  The Nominating Committee members (Doria, Cubberley and Bekele) and the ALAC Liaison do not have formal votes but their opinions are also expressed in the chart.  This chart needs to be read in conjunction with the participation table at Annex A which sets out which constituencies participated in each of the Task Force’s calls and Rapporteur Groups as, on numerous occasions, several Constituencies were not represented.

 

PDP FEB 06:  STRAW POLL INDICATORS CURRENT AT 15 FEBRUARY 2007

TERMS OF REFERENCE ONE AND TWO

 

POLICY RECOMMENDATION

1A.1

1A.2

1A.3

1A.4

1A.5

1B.1

1B.2

2A.1

2A.2

2A.3

2B.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONSTITUENCIES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BC

Y

Y

Y

 

 

 

Y

 

 

Y

Y

ISPC

Y

Y

Y

 

 

Y

 

P

P

P

Y

IPC

Y

Y**

 

Y

 

A

A

 

 

 

Y

NCUC

Y

 

 

 

Y

 

Y

?

 

Y

Y

RC

Y

Y

 

Y

 

Y

 

Y

 

 

Y

RyC

N

?

Y

 

Y

A

A

 

 

Y

Y

Doria

Y

Y

Y

 

 

 

Y

 

 

Y

Y

Cubberley

Y

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bekele

Y

Y

Y

 

 

 

Y

 

 

Y

Y

Fausett

Y

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL – CONSTITUENCIES

5

4

3

2

2

2

2

1

 

3

6

TOTAL – NV MEMBERS

4

2

2

 

 

 

2

 

 

2

2

 

PDP FEB 06:  STRAW POLL INDICATORS CURRENT AT 15 FEBRUARY 2007

TERMS OF REFERENCE THREE, FOUR, FIVE AND SIX

 

POLICY RECOMMENDATION

3a.1

3b.1

3b.2

4a.1

4b.1

5a.1

5a.2

5b.1

6a.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONSTITUENCIES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BC

Y

Y

 

P

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

ISPC

Y

Y

 

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

IPC

Y

 

Y

Y

Y

?

?

Y

Y

NCUC

N

 

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

A

RC

Y

Y

 

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

RyC

A

 

 

A

N

^^

^^

N

Y

Doria

A

A

A

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y