Re: [council] Proposed amendment to BCUC motion

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,


My issue on your original motion is that  by including:

> The GNSO Council does not consider the WG report as an adequate  
> basis for any implementation of OPOC.
it is asking the councilors to make a determination on this work without
having gone back to the constituencies.  One of the problems people have
brought up with the WG is that given it was a group of individuals,  
it is
impossible to know where the GSNO constituencies stand on the  
recommendations
made by the WG.  That is the main reason I believe we should be  
asking the
constituencies to update their impact statements in the light of this
additional content.

I think it would have been a different motion if it had just asked  
the staff
to begin looking into the work required to study the queestions so  
that they
could come back to the council with a recommendation on how to  
proceed. It is
also different then a proposal to have the studies begin and run in  
parrallel
with other whois activities.  Personally I think that the information  
from
these studies may be useful to the Board in making its decsion, but I  
would be
surprised if they changed the policy positions in the council.  And I  
certainly
believe the studies would be helpful in terms of implementation.

As far as voting, that is one of the reasons I have requested that  
the motions
be included in the Draft final report that is reviewed by the  
constituencies and
the community.  It is my current expectation that there are at least  
3 possible
motions:

- One that you might write up saying something like the information  
that the WG
provided is insufficient for the implementation of an OPOC and that  
we recommend
that the work continue within the council until the information from  
the studies
can be factored in.  Perhaps, should you defer your motion, you will  
use the
text already submitted.

- One I will write up that basically states: The council supports the  
OPOC
recommendation as contained in the TF report and instructs the staff  
to consult
the work of the WG and the follow-on discussion, including comments  
supplied by
the constituencies during the review and by the community, in  
creating its
implementation. It will further request that the staff consult with  
the council
once it has developed a draft implementation plan should both the  
council and the
board support the OPOC recommendation. (still needs wordsmithing)

- One that I expect Ross will write up saying something like: there  
is no consensus
and that in the absence of consensus the staff should remove the  
contractual condition
requiring whois service.  Perhaps he will use the text he already  
submitted.
- and any other option someone wants to write up as a motion.

This way the constituencies can not only include their comments on  
the recommendations
but can give explicit directions, should they wish to do so, on how  
their representatives
are to vote.

Though as I told Ross, since you made the motion and I believe have  
had it seconded by
Kristina, I will put it to a vote at our next if that is what you  
want to do.
thanks
a.





On 30 aug 2007, at 23.25, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:

> The GAC Communique from Lisbon, March 28, 2007, suggested:
>
> The ICANN Community, working with other stakeholders, should gather
> information on gTLD domain name registrations and registrants and how
> WHOIS data is used and misused.  This information should be publicized
> and used to inform future debate on this issue.
>
> It was not part of the latest WG's Charter to undertake such a  
> study, I
> think because the Communique came out after we had resolved the  
> Charter
> (later the same day).  But that WG nevertheless came to the conclusion
> that such a study should be undertaken for the same reason.
>
> What is the harm in undertaking such a study now, before voting to  
> move
> forward with radical policy changes (OPoC, or Ross' proposal) that  
> have
> only been outlined, and are far from implementable proposals?
>
> What would be the harm of waiting for the results of such a study,
> before deciding on a path to completion of work on this issue?
>
> I still have no idea what we would be voting on in November, per  
> Avri's
> proposal, since there is no implementable proposal on the table nor  
> any
> path to come up with one.
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh