[council] RE : [council] Compromise motion on Verisign

[<Niklas_Lagergren@xxxxxxxx>]

Lucy and I are fine with the wording put forward this morning by Philip.

        -------- Message d'origine-------- 
        De: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Date: ven. 12/2/2005 8:10 
        À: 'Norbert Klein'; 'Bret Fausett' 
        Cc: council@xxxxxxxxx 
        Objet: RE: [council] Compromise motion on Verisign
        
        

         I think that Council needs to give some guidance on this issue. I 
think we
        made a very good step forward when the Board committed to consultant 
ion,
        and that consultation has begun. There are many consistencies in the
        statement  n s of all the Constituencies and in the ALAC. And the need 
to
        undertake policy development seems a consistency,
        
        Council should tell the Board clearly of the consistencies that we see 
in
        the comments, I believe.
        
        In all constituencies yesterday, I am told, Board members stated the 
need
        for clear guidance. I also heard this from a few Board members. In the 
last
        public meeting in Luxembourg, we heard from one or two Board members  ,
        seated in the public forum, that they thought that the statements made 
from
        the constituencies from the floor in the public forum were "merely the
        statements of a few individuals". 
        
        I think we have to take seriously how we can advance our ability to 
respond
        to the situations that face us when we walk into an ICANN meeting and
        decisions are going to be made, or not made, by the board on items of 
urgent
        concern or with significant policy implications.
        
        We have to be able to develop and take a resolution approach while at an
        ICANN meeting, and that is a topic we need to grapple with 
administratively
        going forward.
        For this meeting, the BC proposed a resolution that all constituencies 
had a
        full day and had constituency meetings scheduled when they could 
discuss the
        issue and approach.
        
        Philip has suggested some modifications to the resolution to simplify 
it.
        So, two points:
        
        We should provide a summary of the consistencies from our meeting.
        Secondly, we should present a resolution supporting a delay, and noting 
our
        policy work which has to be completed to advise the .com assignment 
process.
        
        I think it is fair for the Board to expect the gNSO policy council to be
        able to provide a resolution that has majority support.
        
         
        
        -----Original Message-----
        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
        Behalf Of Norbert Klein
        Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 12:22 PM
        To: Bret Fausett
        Cc: council@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [council] Compromise motion on Verisign
        
        Bret Fausett wrote:
        
        > My understanding is that the Board already pledged not to sign
        > anything until 2006. Perhaps we want to put a date on the request. In
        > other words, change the resolution clause to read: "That the ICANN
        > Board should postpone adoption of the proposed settlement _until the
        > next meeting in Wellington, New Zealand_, while the Council fully
        > investigates the policy issues raised by the proposed changes _and
        > reports to the Board on its findings_."
        >
        >        Bret
        
        I heard the same "rumor" - but was there a Board meeting deciding this?
        
        
        Norbert