Danny, Point well taken, and will follow through in the council discussions, thanks, Mawaki --- Danny Younger <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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 >