Re: [council] Proposed amendment to BCUC motion
Hi,
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:
|