RE: [council] Motions under AOB for council meeting September 6 2007

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Am I correct in concluding that the BC compromise motion is an attempt
to consolidate the key elements of all the motions?  If so, that is an
important consideration as we discuss the motions today.

Chuck Gomes
 
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 3:14 AM
> To: GNSO Council
> Subject: Re: [council] Motions under AOB for council meeting 
> September 6 2007
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On consideration I will accept your proposal as a friendly 
> amendment as stated below.
> I have also accepted Chuck's friendly amendment on your 
> friendly amendment as well.
> 
> It is also my assumption that Ross' proposed amendment 
> remains on the table and will be voted on before the motion 
> as amended.
> 
> I must note that my original motion was never properly seconded.
> 
> Does anyone second this motion?
> The proposed amendment, has however, been seconded.
> 
> I am assuming that now both the original Mike Rodenbough 
> (BCUC) motion and the counter motion by Ross Rader are now 
> off the table.
> 
> thanks
> 
> ----------------------
> 
> Proposed motion to finish Whois work as amended by Mike 
> Rodenbaugh for vote on Sept 06, 2007
> 
> 
> Whereas;
> 
> 1.    The Whois WG has now completed its work,
> 
> Therefore;
> 
> Be it resolved, that the GNSO Council;
> 
> The GNSO Council accepts the WG report and appreciates the 
> efforts made by WG participants and ICANN staff in preparing 
> this report.  Further, the GNSO council
> also:
> 
> a) graciously thanks all of the volunteers, consultants, 
> staff and others who
>     have participated in the Task Force and Working Group.
> 
> b) makes no specific policy recommendation to the ICANN board 
> at this time
>     concerning Whois or related policy.
> 
> c) requests ICANN Staff to proceed with a study of the 
> factual characteristics
>     of the Whois database, as suggested by the GAC and by the 
> Working Group report.
>     This study should include a review and analysis of the 
> different proxy services
>     available today, a summary of any other statistical 
> studies that Staff can locate,
>     and ideally should be completed by October 4, 2007.
> 
> d) requests an update on the WHOIS Data Accuracy Program 
> outlined by ICANN Staff on
>     April 27th, including any statistical information that 
> can be summarized thus far.
>     See http://www.icann.org/whois/whois-data-accuracy-
> program-27apr07.pdf.
> 
> d) shall review any additional factual information, in 
> conjunction with the
>     policy suggestions from the Task Force and Working Group 
> reports, complete this
>     work on Whois, and make a report to the ICANN community 
> and to the ICANN Board,
>     as follows:
> 
> 1 - Staff will produce a Draft Final Report that references 
> the TF report, the WG
>      charter and the WG report by and which includes an 
> overall description of the
>      process by September 13.  This overview should include 
> the text of motions to
>      be voted on at the end of this process.
> 
> 2 - This report will be sent out for Constituency Statement 
> Review on September 13.
>       Constituencies will be asked to follow the by-laws on 
> constituency statements.
>       Specifically :
>           1. Constituency Statements.
>           The Representatives will each be responsible for soliciting
>           the position of their constituencies, at a minimum, 
> and other
>           comments as each Representative deems appropriate, regarding
>           the issue under consideration.  This position and 
> other comments,
>           as applicable, should be submitted in a formal 
> statement to the
>           task force chair (each, a "Constituency Statement") 
> within thirty-five
>           (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP.
>           Every Constituency Statement shall include at least the
>           following:
> 
>           (i) If a Supermajority Vote was reached, a clear 
> statement of the
>               constituency's position on the issue;
> 
>           (ii) If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a 
> clear statement of all
>                positions espoused by constituency members;
> 
>           (iii) A clear statement of how the constituency 
> arrived at its position(s).
>                Specifically, the statement should detail 
> specific constituency meetings,
>                teleconferences, or other means of 
> deliberating an issue, and a list of
>                all members who participated or otherwise 
> submitted their views;
> 
>           (iv) An analysis of how the issue would affect the 
> constituency, including
>                any financial impact on the constituency; and
> 
>            (v) An analysis of the period of time that would 
> likely be necessary to
>                implement the policy.
> 
>   **Final Date for for updated constituency statement: October 4, 2007
> 
> 3 - Staff will Incorporate Constituency comments and any 
> additional factual information
>      into Final Report by October 11, 2007
> 
> 4 - Staff is requested to produce staff implementation notes 
> by October 15
> 
> 5 - Community Public Comment on Final Report: October 15 - 
> November 6, 2007
> 
> 6 - A Public and Council Discussion will be held during the 
> LA Public Meeting
> 
> 7 - Final vote on first GNSO Council meeting after November 6, 2007
> 
> 
> 
> On 6 sep 2007, at 02.09, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
> 
> > The BC also had a motion pending, seconded by the IPC.  We will 
> > rescind that motion in favor of this compromise motion that 
> > incorporates BC, IPC and GAC request for an additional 
> factual study, 
> > and requests updates on ongoing ICANN studies, to incorporate that 
> > information into the process suggested by Avri's motion.
> >
> > Please see attached.  I am not sure if Avri would consider this a 
> > friendly amendment to her motion.  But otherwise we suggest 
> it as an 
> > alternative.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Mike Rodenbaugh
> >
> > Sr. Legal Director
> >
> > Yahoo! Inc.
> >
> >
> >
> > NOTE:  This message may be protected by attorney-client and/or work 
> > product privileges, if you are not the intended recipient 
> then please 
> > delete this message and all attachments and notify me as soon as 
> > possible.  Thanks.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> >
> > Proposed Amendment From Ross Rader to the Whois end process motion:
> >
> >
> > - that "November 6, 2007" in step 5 be replaced with "October 31, 
> > 2007"
> >
> > - that "after November 6, 2007" in step 7 be replaced with 
> "during the 
> > LA Public Meeting".
> >
> >
> > <BC Compromise Resolution - 2.doc>
> 
>