Re: [council] Proposed Motion for draft Final Report on Whois and Voting in LA

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

As I understand the motion we took on an end process, we allowed for  
any motion a council member wanted to make with the stipulation that  
we would vote on all of them before passing the final report on to  
the Board with the results of all motions included.  If this motion  
succeeds in getting a supermajority, I see at least two things  
happening:

 - the final report goes to the board indicating the supermajority  
result for no decision at this time.

 - the GSNO council needs to figure out the manner in which it will  
process the information gained in
   the studies.

If this motion does not achieve supermajority, it is still attached  
to the final report reporting its stauts and the board will know that  
this is the considered opinion of a set of council members.

The motions that are presented by the end of today are to be included  
with the draft final report and are to be discussed by the  
constituencies and the community so that the council members have  
guidance in our vote in LA.

I see no basis for refusing the motion given the end process we have  
adopted.

thanks
a.



On 11 sep 2007, at 14.52, Ross Rader wrote:

> Avri -
>
> I'd like to formally object to this motion as being out of order on  
> the grounds that it is fundamentally inconsistent with the formal  
> Policy Development Process which stipulates that the GNSO Council  
> must file a Board Report pursuant to the receipt of a Final Report.
>
> We have allowed for tremendous flexibility in pursuing this work  
> thus far - timelines have been stretched to the point of breaking,  
> work processes have been bent to include the input of a very broad  
> range of stakeholders and so on. Council must now close off this  
> chapter in a manner consistent with the ICANN bylaws - which means  
> voting on the reports and filing a Council Report to the Board.
>
> If further study is desirable, the work should be pursued outside  
> of the PDP. I would not object to the study component of this  
> motion being pursued as a separate agenda item, but it cannot  
> interfere with our bylaw requirements to vote on this issue and  
> move forward.
>
> Rosette, Kristina wrote:
> > All,
> > Set forth below is a proposed motion for inclusion in the draft Final
> > Report and, if seconded, to be voted upon during the LA meeting.   
> > Kristina -*-
> > WHEREAS:
> > 1. The GNSO Council hereby accepts the Working Group report and
> > acknowledges the tremendous effort by Working Group participants and
> > ICANN staff. 2. The GNSO Council does not consider the Working  
> > Group report as an
> > adequate basis for any implementation of the Operational Point of
> > Contact (OPOC) proposal, due to the inability to reach agreement on a
> > number of key issues identified in the charter of the Working  
> > Group. 3. The GNSO Council notes that no comprehensive, objective  
> > study has yet
> > been made of key factual issues regarding the Whois system, and that
> > future ICANN policymaking could greatly benefit from the results  
> > of such
> > a study.
> > THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The GNSO Council 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.
> > 2. Building on the work done in response to paragraph (c) of the GNSO
> > Council Resolution #3 of September 6, 2007, the Council requests that
> > ICANN staff take the necessary steps to proceed with a comprehensive,
> > objective study on the issues identified by the Whois Working  
> > Group, by
> > the Governmental Advisory Committee in its statement of principles on
> > Whois, and by the Council. These issues include the  
> > characteristics of
> > gTLD registrants, the uses and abuses of Whois data, and a review and
> > analysis of the different proxy services available today.  
> > Specifically,
> > the Council directs the staff to present for its review a draft  
> > Request
> > for Proposals for such a study, including a proposed budget and
> > timeline, and a methodology for outreach to knowledgeable parties,
> > within 90 days from the date of adoption of this resolution. 3.  
> > The GNSO Council will take the results of this study, once completed,
> > into account in deciding on the next steps in Whois policy  
> > development.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Ross Rader
> Director, Retail Services
> Tucows Inc.
>
> http://www.domaindirect.com
> t. 416.538.5492