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] > > >