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

[<Lucy.Nichols@xxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Tom.

Lucy 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ext Thomas Keller
>Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 9:11 AM
>To: Avri Doria
>Cc: Marilyn Cade; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [council] RE: Council report required for the 
>Board on the recently approved WHOIS recommendation
>
>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  
>