<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-dt-wg] RE: [council] Motions re Domain Tasting
While it is probably clear, i meant to say,
I believe the motion as listed in the Agenda is not correct.
or maybe
I believe the motion as listed in the Agenda is incorrect.
a.
On 5 Mar 2008, at 10:52, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
I see no reason why, if the recommendation from the DT for a
constituency and public review of the motion before proceeding is
approved, to not also send a request to legal counsel asking for an
opinion on whether the motion is within scope. I think it can all
be done in parallel and will undertake to make this request if the
motion passes.
BTW, speaking of this, I believe the motion as listed in the Agenda
is not incorrect.
^
In this case it looks like we are being asked to vote on the motion
regarding AGP itself as opposed to actually voting on a Motion to
send the proposed motion out for a 21 day period during which
constituency statements could be updated and public comments could
be collected.
If I understand correctly, I suggest the following motion is what we
are voting on (I have updated the wiki):
Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain
Tasting
and the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting;
Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a
PDP on
Domain Tasting and to request Constituency Impact Statements with
respect to
issues set forth in the Issues Report and in the Final Outcomes
Report;
Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the
formation of a
small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the
Domain
Tasting PDP (the "Design Team"), the principal volunteers to which
had been
members of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were well-informed
of both
the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and
the GNSO
Initial Report on Domain Tasting (collectively with the Issues
Report, the
"Reports on Domain Tasting");
Whereas, the Design Team has met and agreed on a Draft Motion
attached to
be set out for public comment and for Constituency Impact review;
The GNSO Council RESOLVES:
1. The Draft Motion shall be posted for 21-day public comment on
March 7,
2008. Each Constituency shall have 21 days from March 7, 2008 to
update its
Constituency Impact Statement with respect to this motion, if it so
chooses.
The deadline for amended Statements shall be March 28, 2008.
2. ICANN Staff please shall provide a summary of any public comments
and/or amended Constituency Impact Statements to the Council, via
submission
of a Final Report with respect to this PDP, by April 4, 2008.
3. The Design Team shall then meet and confer with respect to the
Final
Report, in order to consider any public comments and/or amended
Constituency
Impact Statements and to consider any suggested amendments to the
Draft
Motion, and shall recommend a Final Motion to be considered by
Council for
vote in its scheduled meeting April 17, 2008.
4. It is the intention of the GNSO for the Staff to produce a Board
Report on this PDP for consideration by the ICANN Board, in the hope
that
the Board may vote on any recommendations of the GNSO with respect
to this
PDP, at the scheduled ICANN meeting in Paris in June, 2008
<insert text of DNT DT motion>
a.
On 5 Mar 2008, at 10:14, Tim Ruiz wrote:
The Staff and Counsel may have stated the
opinion that tasting was within scope, but that doesn't mean that
every
element of any policy proposal we come up is viable under current
contracts. That's all we're saying. If the Council does send
something
to the Board it just seems reasonable that if there is a question
about
it actually being implementable that we first try to resolve that.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|