Re: [council] Proposed amendment to BCUC motion

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I would like to second Ross's proposed amendment as it stands at
this point in time (the initial wording), and hope the council
will consider a vote on this issue as soon as possible.
Thanks,

Mawaki

--- Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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
>