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

["Olof Nordling" <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Bruce,
OK, let's post the report for info as soon as Maria has prepared it.
Best regards
Olof

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 10:54 PM
To: Olof Nordling
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] RE: Council report required for the Board on the recently
approved WHOIS recommendation

Hello Olof,

> 
> As I read it, the judgment in what way Art 3.6.1 (apologies 
> for switching the numbers around in my previous mail) is 
> applicable to a proposal should be made before it is 
> submitted to the Board - not by the Board (otherwise there is 
> a procedural loop). Our assessment was that this proposal did 
> not "substantially affect the operation of the Internet or 
> third parties, including the imposition of any fees or 
> charges", meaning that the posting requirements etc in the 
> sub-paragraphs are not applicable. 

Agreed.

> 
> There are no other requirements for postings prior to Board 
> treatment, really. As to the Board report, a 21 day posting 
> is not required as such and would potentially be in conflict 
> with Annex A, article 13: 
> "13. Board Vote
> a. The Board will meet to discuss the GNSO Council 
> recommendation as soon as feasible after receipt of the Board 
> Report from the Staff Manager."

I don't think that the two concepts are directly in conflict.  I think
release of a key document 21 days prior to the Board meeting has two
benefits - provides time for the Board to properly read the document,
and ensures that the Board meets its transparency requirements of
ensuring that the community has amply time to see what issues are before
the Board.   I don't see it as a "requirement", but do see it as a
reasonable objective from the point of view of best practice.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin