Mawaki,

I have concerns regarding section 4.4 reprinted below:

4.4	There should be renewal expectancy.  A contract
would be renewed provided that the license holder is
not in material breach of the contract, or has not
been found in repeated non-performance of the
contract, and provided the license holder agrees to
the any new framework contract conditions that are
reasonably acceptable.    Any new framework contract
would take into account the consensus policies in
place at that time.

I do not favor presumptive renewal having noted the
benefits of re-bids (that served to significantly
lower the .net registry fees).  

There are registries (such as .pro) that are neither
in material breach of their contracts nor are engaged
in repeated contract non-performance that nevertheless
should be re-bid in that the current sponsoring
organization has not properly served its respective
community -- .pro for example has only 4628 domains
under management; see
http://www.icann.org/tlds/monthly-reports/pro/registrypro-200605.pdf

The broader community, in thousands of comments
tendered on the .com, .biz, .info and .org registry
contract proposals, has signaled overwhelming
opposition to the concept of presumptive renewal.  

I would appreciate hearing the views of the
constituency on this topic.  In my view the community
gains when contracts are put out for re-bid.  I
believe in the merits of the competition and would
argue that they outweigh presumptive rights for
incumbent registries.

best regards,
Danny

--- Mawaki Chango <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Attached, the "Amsterdam report" in progress from
> the staff.
> Constructive and focused comments are welcome.
> 
> Mawaki
> 
> --- Liz Williams <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > From: Liz Williams <[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: [gtld-council] GNSO PDP Dec 05:  Draft
> Recommendations
> > Summary
> > Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:31:51 +0200
> > 
> > 
> > Colleagues
> > 
> > Please find attached a DRAFT Recommendations
> Summary.  It is a  
> > working document which will be refined and
> completed as the  
> > Committee's Final Report is prepared.
> > 
> > If you have comments or questions, please come
> back to me.  I would
> >  
> > appreciate very much specific editing or
> contextual changes --
> > please  
> > identify the recommendation number you are
> referring to send me  
> > specific text.  I will collate all the comments
> from the group and 
> > 
> > work out the best way forward.  I have read all
> the comments which 
> > 
> > have been circulating on the many lists and will
> work towards  
> > incorporating those where there is majority
> agreement.
> > 
> > I will have this document posted as a working
> document on the GNSO 
> > 
> > website.
> > 
> > Kind regards and, of course, any questions please
> ask.
> > 
> > Liz
> > 
> > >
>
.....................................................
> > 
> > Liz Williams
> > Senior Policy Counselor
> > ICANN - Brussels
> > +32 2 234 7874 tel
> > +32 2 234 7848 fax
> > +32 497 07 4243 mob
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com