[registrars] Fw: [council] Final revisd report of the Review task force
I just received this today and ...
Even though I was not the task force representative for the registrars, I felt it was important to pass this on to you all for review & comment.
As a representative for the registrars on the Names Council, I have expressed continuing concerns that this document, as written & originally presented, allowed for too much "flexibility" for other constituencies to create a "scenario" whereby WE registrars could have imposed on us a significant burden for ICANN activities in the future without proportional benefit to our constituency.
Of particular concern to me was the potential cost of "at-large" outreach which could easily go above $1-2 million dollars. I did not want to see the burdens of programs like this "arbitrarily dumped" on our constituency..
I feel it is quite important that we "weigh in" additionally thru our current representative (Erica Roberts) as well as express our concern to the ICANN management & board and to the ICANN budget committee thru our constituency members Elena, Rob, & Bryan..
----- Original Message -----
From: Philip Sheppard
To: NC (list)
Cc: Tony Holmes ISP ; Philip Sheppard ; Peter de Blanc ccTLD ; Milton Mueller ; Erica Roberts Reg ; Axel Aus der Muhlen ; Roberto Gaetano DNSO GA
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 7:57 AM
Subject: [council] Final revisd report of the Review task force
At the last NC meeting the Council had expressed overall support for the majority of the Review task force final report. The registry constituency and the registrars had expressed some concern about section 5 on consensus in that a proposed slight change to the by-laws may impact on registry or registrar legal agreements. I explained that such an impact had not been the intent of the TF and agreed as NC chair to seek clarifying wording acceptable to the Council. I have since been in contact with ICANN Counsel and he concurs that there could be a potential impact.
Accordingly, I present a revised final draft report which has been modified as follows:
- the proposed change in the by-laws is deleted
- the relevance of consensus to registry or registrar agreements is made explicit
- a process with two options is outlined for the development of a consensus policy.
I hope this report will now meet with Council's approval and I submit it for approval at the forthcoming NC meeting December 13.