[council] RE: [gnso-dt-wg] FW: Summary of public comments on a draft GNSO Council resolution to curb domain tasting
- To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, <gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [council] RE: [gnso-dt-wg] FW: Summary of public comments on a draft GNSO Council resolution to curb domain tasting
- From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 09:58:21 -0400
- Cc: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <043BA107-0A6E-4786-B7BF-FBE6F39111F4@acm.org>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AciUwcYGT7AsrHP4Q6qc3ibvENOmwgABWS8A
- Thread-topic: [gnso-dt-wg] FW: Summary of public comments on a draft GNSO Council resolution to curb domain tasting
We didn't talk about providing a summary, but here's my take on it:
It is accurate to say that there was support for not changing the
motion. (I did not agree on several points, but ultimately decided that
it was necessary to agree to disagree given my singular status on these
Only comments raised by participants were discussed. There was no
systematic effort to track the public comment summary provided by staff.
Comments that Council should define or delineate "exceptional
circumstances" and "regularly" or should instruct Staff to do so in
implementation were not acted upon on the ground that doing so would
cause delay in action on motion and that review period could be relied
upon to disclose abuses.
Comments that "exceptional circumstances" information should be publicly
disclosed were not acted upon on the ground that that information is the
business of only the relevant registry, registrar, and ICANN staff, and
that review period can be relied upon to disclose abuses.
Comments that a timeframe for implementation should be added were not
acted upon on the ground that implementation is beyond scope. There was
general agreement that implementation should occur in a reasonable time.
Extensive discussion about whether Council should include in motion
provision regarding budget mechanism. General agreement that should be
included in motion, but follow on motion may be appropriate. As best I
could determine, I was the only who supported budget mechanism in
addition to policy.
Out of concern that the team would later be accused of ignoring public
comment, I started a discussion on the fact that a number of comments
had called for elimination of the AGP or indicated that elimination was
the preferred mechanism. My personal view is that these comments were
not given the consideration they warrant.
From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 9:01 AM
Cc: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [gnso-dt-wg] FW: Summary of public comments on a draft GNSO
Council resolution to curb domain tasting
I am wondering whether the DT is going to go through all the comments
and include an initial response to them in their report to the council
or whether the council itself will approach then raw at the council
meeting. I am fine either way, though I think having the DT do the
first pass a responding to all comments will facilitate the work and
give a better perspective.
I want to make sure that in our deliberations we cover all of the
possibilities and issues mentioned in the public comments, including
those that are not direct comments on the motion before the council or
the proposals before the Registry Services Evaluation Process. I.e.
we should discuss not only modification to the AGP but must make sure we
cover in our discussions the proposal to eliminate the AGP. We also
need to make sure we understand the implications of the current motion
on the proposal before the Registry Services Evaluation Process and the
Board resolution (2008.01.04) to investigate using ICANN's budgetary
process to control DT through the introduction of fees .