Re: [council] Proposed amendment to BCUC motion

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Ross,

As I mentioned today in the meeting when I asked you to talk about  
your motion, I do not see how this could be amendment to Mike's  
motion, friendly or otherwise, I guess I wasn't very clear about that  
then.  It does, however, seem like a standalone motion that could be  
made if you so wished and had a second.  If you insist that it is  
properly an amendment, I will have to get advice on whether it does  
indeed count as an amendment.  And if it is a well formed amendment,   
by some acceptable definition, then I believe we would have to vote  
on it before voting on Mike's motion (a Robert's Rules of Order sort  
of thing even though we are generally not that strict about things).   
One problem I have seeing it as an amendment is that amendments  
usually have a 'substitute x for y' type of format.  And a  
'substitute all of it for this,' is more of a counter motion in my  
experience.

Further, As you know, I was a co-author of a paper that suggested  
something similar.  We even tried to get it included as an original  
Task force option, failed because of timing but got it included as  
Appendix B.  I point this out to say I am _not_ arguing against this  
as an amendment to Mike's proposal because I disagree with it in  
principle.  And to let Mike know where the idea has come up before.

While I believe that any motion that a councilor makes that is duly  
seconded needs to be voted on, I would also ask if this is the right  
time for this vote.  I would ask that this vote, if indeed there is  
to be a vote on this, be held until the end of the process I am  
proposing.  Once we have the constituencies review the work and have  
gotten their opinions, then it might be the right time for the  
council to consider this motion along with the the TF report and WG  
report.  At that point, the councilors could make an informed vote  
based on their constituencies viewpoints.

If, however, you wish to have this motion considered third after we  
consider the proposal I am tabling and Mikes proposal for initiating  
the studies, and you have a second, I will call the vote.   
Alternatively, if ICANN counsel or other parliamentary procedure  
expert confirms that this is a valid and well formed amendment then I  
will follow an amendment voting procedure.

So, Ross, I would like to ask you to consider holding this until  
after we have gone through the process to get GNSO review for the WG  
efforts.

thanks

a.


On 30 aug 2007, at 17.19, Ross Rader wrote:

> I am not sure if this made it to the list or not, but this was  
> intended to serve as an amendment to the proposed BCUC motion;
>
> Whereas;
>
> 1.    The GNSO Council accepts the WG report and appreciates the  
> efforts made by WG participants and ICANN staff in preparing this  
> report.
> 2.    The GNSO Council does not consider the WG report as  
> sufficiently demonstrating consensus or agreement on substantive  
> policy proposals.
> 3.    The GNSO Council considers that the lack of consensus  
> demonstrated through this open and inclusive working group is  
> representative of the lack of agreement on key issues in this area  
> of policy.
> 4.    The GNSO Council recognizes that there is no standing  
> consensus policy concerning the management of the Whois service and  
> data provided to the public through that service by ICANN's  
> contracted commercial operators, the registries and registrars.  
> save and except the Whois Data Reminder Policy and the Whois  
> Marketing Restriction Policy.
>
> Therefore;
>
> Be it resolved;
>
> a) that the GNSO Council concludes the current PDP on Whois.
> b) graciously thanks all of the volunteers, consultants, staff and  
> others who have participated in the GNSO's examination of Whois  
> policy over the last four years.
> c) that the GNSO Council makes no specific policy recommendation to  
> the ICANN board at this time concerning Whois or related policy.
> d) that the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN staff and Board of  
> Directors that due to the lack of consensus on issues in this area  
> that current contractual requirements concerning Whois for  
> registries, registrars and registrants that are not supported by  
> consensus policy be eliminated from the current operating  
> agreements between ICANN and its contracted parties until such time  
> that consensus policy in this area has been developed.
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Ross Rader
> Director, Retail Services
> Tucows Inc.
>
> http://www.domaindirect.com
> t. 416.538.5492