Re: [council] Proposed amendment to BCUC motion

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I am happy to proceed as if this were a substitute motion, in which case 
the proper parliamentary procedure would be to allow the council to vote 
on both propositions at a time considered appropriate by the chair. 
Neither of the motions are mutually exclusive and could conceivably be 
passed by council without real contention between the motions (i.e. its 
not as if one says "stop" and the other says "go" - more like one says 
"study more" and the other says "do something else completely", but we 
could "study more" and "do something else completely" in addition.).

I would like this motion to be considered at the same time as Mike's 
motion as I believe we are substantively looking to deal with the same 
agenda item - it would also make sense, given the approach you've 
outlined below, that we both wait until your process has concluded.



Avri Doria wrote:
> 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


--
Regards,

Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
Tucows Inc.

http://www.domaindirect.com
t. 416.538.5492