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

[Thomas Keller <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>]

just to make my point clearer. I don´t see why yet another
round of public comments would do any good, the arguments haven´t 
changed for the last three years and that is the "compromise" the
taskforce came up with.

tom

Am 22.12.2005 schrieb Thomas Keller:
> 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  
> 
> 

Gruss,

tom

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