Re: [council] RE: Council report required for the Board on the recently approved WHOIS recommendation

[Thomas Keller <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri,

this recommendation has already been through various iterations
of public comments at the taskforce and council level. What is
presented to the board now is the final product of ICANNs policy
body for gTLDs created through the ICANN policy process. As the
board is not policy body itself it should not have a look at the
recomendation in that respect but rather in terms of possible flaws
or errors making the policy unworkable. 

Best,

tom

Am 22.12.2005 schrieb Avri Doria:
> Hi,
> 
> In this case I would think that the comment period serves as a guide  
> to the board on whether they should endorse the recommendations and  
> what sort of the recommendations they might want to make about future  
> policy processes on the topic.
> 
> I think that it is important that both the council get comment before  
> making a recommendation and that the board get comment before making  
> a decision.  Also acts as a community check and balance on the work  
> we do.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 22 dec 2005, at 10.29, Marilyn Cade wrote:
> 
> >Sometimes I would agree, Avri.
> >
> >
> >But in this case, I am not clear on what this would serve. I think  
> >we have met the responsibility for public comment on this policy.
> >
> >
> > Unless you are thinking that this would offer another chance for  
> >more organized, coherent, and thoughtful statements that the  
> >Council would need to take into account?
> >
> >
> >How would that work, given the state of the policy process we are  
> >in now?
> >
> >From:  Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> >To:  GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Subject:  Re: [council] RE: Council report required for the Board  
> >on the recently approved WHOIS recommendation
> >Date:  Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:16:32 -0500
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>I know this was addressed to Bruce, but I would like to comment that
> >>  I think it is always better to have more public comment rather
> >>then  less.  so if the by-laws allow it, it seems best to have a
> >>comment  period.
> >>
> >>the only proviso would be how it would affect the completion
> >>schedule.  I.e. can a comment period be held and still have a
> >>decision in the pre Wellington time frame.
> >>
> >>a.
> >>
> >>On 22 dec 2005, at 05.21, Olof Nordling wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hi Bruce,
> >>>Thanks for the reminder - Maria and I have talked about it and she
> >>>will
> >>>produce the report, aiming for the February Board meeting. We have
> >>>also
> >>>considered whether we should launch an additional public comment
> >>>period on
> >>>it. In view of the Bylaws, Art 6.3.1, we don't see that as
> >>>necessary in this
> >>>case and we're keen to hear your view on it.
> >>>Best regards
> >>>Olof
> >>>
> >>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >>>Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 6:31 AM
> >>>To: olof nordling
> >>>Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>Subject: Council report required for the Board on the recently
> >>>approved
> >>>WHOIS recommendation
> >>>
> >>>Hello Olof,
> >>>
> >>>As the Council approved the recent WHOIS recommendation in its
> >>>meeting
> >>>on
> >>>28 Nov 2005.
> >>>
> >>>See
> >>>http://gnso.icann.org/issues/tf-final-rpt-25oct05.htm for Final
> >>>Report.
> >>>
> >>>The next step is to finalise a "Council Report to the Board".  See
> >>>quote
> >>>from the bylaws below.
> >>>
> >>>As discussed in the Council meeting today, it would be appropriate
> >>>to
> >>>prepare this report for consideration by the Board in its Board
> >>>meeting
> >>>in February 2006.
> >>>
> >>>Regards,
> >>>Bruce
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>11. Council Report to the Board
> >>>
> >>>The Staff Manager will be present at the final meeting of the
> >>>Council,
> >>>and will have five (5) calendar days after the meeting to
> >>>incorporate
> >>>the views of the Council into a report to be submitted to the Board
> >>>  (the
> >>>"Board Report"). The Board Report must contain at least the
> >>>following:
> >>>
> >>>a. A clear statement of any Supermajority Vote recommendation of
> >>>the
> >>>Council;
> >>>
> >>>b. If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear statement of
> >>>all
> >>>positions held by Council members. Each statement should clearly
> >>>indicate (i) the reasons underlying each position and (ii) the
> >>>constituency(ies) that held the position;
> >>>
> >>>c. An analysis of how the issue would affect each constituency,
> >>>including any financial impact on the constituency;
> >>>
> >>>d. An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary
> >>>to
> >>>implement the policy;
> >>>
> >>>e. The advice of any outside advisors relied upon, which should be
> >>>accompanied by a detailed statement of the advisor's (i)
> >>>qualifications
> >>>and relevant experience; and (ii) potential conflicts of interest;
> >>>
> >>>f. The Final Report submitted to the Council; and
> >>>
> >>>g. A copy of the minutes of the Council deliberation on the policy
> >>>issue, including the all opinions expressed during such
> >>>deliberation,
> >>>accompanied by a description of who expressed such opinions.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> 

Gruss,

tom

(__)        
(OO)_____  
(oo)    /|\     A cow is not entirely full of
  | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
  w w w  w