<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] RE: Council report required for the Board on the recently approved WHOIS recommendation
- To: avri@xxxxxxx, council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [council] RE: Council report required for the Board on the recently approved WHOIS recommendation
- From: "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:29:33 -0500
- In-reply-to: <9255F875-D80F-412F-BDE3-DC26B9A6B5AD@acm.org>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV class=RTE>
<P>Sometimes I would agree, Avri.</P>
<P> </P>
<P>But in this case, I am not clear on what this would serve. I think we have met the
responsibility for public comment on this policy. </P>
<P> </P>
<P> Unless you are thinking that this would offer another chance for more
organized, coherent, and thoughtful statements that the Council would need to take into
account? </P>
<P> </P>
<P>How would that work, given the state of the policy process we are in now?
</P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #a0c6e5 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT:
0px"><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 11px; FONT-FAMILY: tahoma,sans-serif">
<HR color=#a0c6e5 SIZE=1>
<DIV></DIV>From: <I>Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx></I><BR>To: <I>GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx></I><BR>Subject: <I>Re: [council] RE: Council report required for the Board on the recently approved WHOIS recommendation</I><BR>Date: <I>Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:16:32 -0500</I><BR>>Hi,<BR>><BR>>I know this was addressed to Bruce, but I would like to comment that <BR>> I think it is always better to have more public comment rather <BR>>then less. so if the by-laws allow it, it seems best to have a <BR>>comment period.<BR>><BR>>the only proviso would be how it would affect the completion <BR>>schedule. I.e. can a comment period be held and still have a <BR>>decision in the pre Wellington time
frame.<BR>><BR>>a.<BR>><BR>>On 22 dec 2005, at 05.21, Olof Nordling wrote:<BR>><BR>>>Hi Bruce,<BR>>>Thanks for the reminder - Maria and I have talked about it and she <BR>>>will<BR>>>produce the report, aiming for the February Board meeting. We have <BR>>>also<BR>>>considered whether we should launch an additional public comment <BR>>>period on<BR>>>it. In view of the Bylaws, Art 6.3.1, we don't see that as <BR>>>necessary in this<BR>>>case and we're keen to hear your view on it.<BR>>>Best regards<BR>>>Olof<BR>>><BR>>>-----Original Message-----<BR>>>From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]<BR>>>Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 6:31 AM<BR>>>To: olof nordling<BR>>>Cc:
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>>>Subject: Council report required for the Board on the recently <BR>>>approved<BR>>>WHOIS recommendation<BR>>><BR>>>Hello Olof,<BR>>><BR>>>As the Council approved the recent WHOIS recommendation in its <BR>>>meeting<BR>>>on<BR>>>28 Nov 2005.<BR>>><BR>>>See<BR>>>http://gnso.icann.org/issues/tf-final-rpt-25oct05.htm for Final <BR>>>Report.<BR>>><BR>>>The next step is to finalise a "Council Report to the Board". See <BR>>>quote<BR>>>from the bylaws below.<BR>>><BR>>>As discussed in the Council meeting today, it would be appropriate <BR>>>to<BR>>>prepare this report for consideration by the Board in its Board <BR>>>meeting<BR>>>in February
2006.<BR>>><BR>>>Regards,<BR>>>Bruce<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>11. Council Report to the Board<BR>>><BR>>>The Staff Manager will be present at the final meeting of the <BR>>>Council,<BR>>>and will have five (5) calendar days after the meeting to <BR>>>incorporate<BR>>>the views of the Council into a report to be submitted to the Board <BR>>> (the<BR>>>"Board Report"). The Board Report must contain at least the <BR>>>following:<BR>>><BR>>>a. A clear statement of any Supermajority Vote recommendation of <BR>>>the<BR>>>Council;<BR>>><BR>>>b. If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear statement of <BR>>>all<BR>>>positions held by Council members. Each statement should clearly<BR>>>indicate (i) the reasons underlying
each position and (ii) the<BR>>>constituency(ies) that held the position;<BR>>><BR>>>c. An analysis of how the issue would affect each constituency,<BR>>>including any financial impact on the constituency;<BR>>><BR>>>d. An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary <BR>>>to<BR>>>implement the policy;<BR>>><BR>>>e. The advice of any outside advisors relied upon, which should be<BR>>>accompanied by a detailed statement of the advisor's (i) <BR>>>qualifications<BR>>>and relevant experience; and (ii) potential conflicts of interest;<BR>>><BR>>>f. The Final Report submitted to the Council; and<BR>>><BR>>>g. A copy of the minutes of the Council deliberation on the policy<BR>>>issue, including the all opinions expressed during such
<BR>>>deliberation,<BR>>>accompanied by a description of who expressed such opinions.<BR>>><BR>>><BR>><BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></div></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|