Hi,

NCSG did not submit a comment on this call^, but I recommend that we review the comments and participate in this teleconference and then look into submitting a reply before the 27 March deadline..

I have tentatively put myself down to take responsibility for this*, but on second thought, since I  advise an applicant registry,  may not be the most impartial - though of course I try.

I think the issue is interesting and I have been following it with interest.

My quick cheat sheet analysis:

- ICANN staff has changed the proposed contract for new registries
- ICANN could claim that contracts are pure implementation, but they have  a comment process

- There was a presumption during the policy process for continuation of Registry contracts that were subject to change only after PDP consensus process

- the new contract essentially eliminates the picket fence** protection for registries,
- this means that ICANN can change the material conditions of the contract anytime it wants without the annoying intervention of a PDP Consensus decision

- GAC, ALAC and others have been advocating an ICANN regime where, as they sometimes  put it, the contracted parties don't have a veto over changes to the regulations.  
- Registries who would have accept the unusual conditions of a contract that can be changed without a bilateral renegotiation beleive this makes doing business a whole lot harder.

- With this contract change, the GAC and ALAc have achieved one of their important goals, 
- but this only applies to new gTLDs, the incumbents will, I beleive, remain under the previous contracts. At least until they need to renegotiate their contracts.

It is of course more complicated than this.  I too suggest people participate in this call and discussion as this is a rather big issue for ICANN and the whole method by which the GNSO works.

 
avri

^ https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-05feb13-en.htm
* https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments-Current
** picket fence for those who don't know more than I do: defines s et of condition in the contract that can be changed  by ICANN consensus policy, while all other conditions remain as bilaterally agreed.

On 28 Feb 2013, at 01:41, Robin Gross wrote:

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: "Drazek, Keith" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: February 27, 2013 4:06:27 PM PST
>> To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Invitation to March 4, 2013 Community Consultation on Proposed Changes to the New gTLD Registry Agreement
>> 
>> Hi Robin,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I hope you’re doing well.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Attached is an invitation to the Monday, March 4 community consultation teleconference on the proposed changes to the New gTLD Registry Agreement.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> You and any interested  NCSG member are welcome to participate and/or listen in. Please feel free to circulate this to the NCSG list.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Keith
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
> <image001.gif>
>> 
>> Keith Drazek
>> Director of Policy
>> [log in to unmask]
>> m: +1-571-377-9182
>> 12061 Bluemont Way
>> 
>> Reston, VA 20190
>> 
>> VerisignInc.com
>> 
> <image003.gif>
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
> <image001.gif>
> <image003.gif>
> <RySG Invitation to Community Consultation Teleconference on Monday, March 4 to Discuss ICANN Proposed Registry Agreement Changes.pdf>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: [log in to unmask]
> 
> 
>