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

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Avri, I also last night had added in one other request for an
update as to the pending SSAC study, which I think you may have
inadvertently omitted from below?  It should go as section (e) and then
the process outline as section (f):

 

e) requests an update on the pending SSAC study on "Information
Gathering Using Domain Name Registration Records" outlined in September,
2006.  See
http://www.icann.org/committees/security/information-gathering-28Sep2006
.pdf

 

Now I have inserted it below and changed the numbering.

 

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.

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 12:14 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.

 

e) requests an update on the pending SSAC study on "Information
Gathering Using Domain Name Registration Records" outlined in September,
2006.  See
http://www.icann.org/committees/security/information-gathering-28Sep2006
.pdf

 

f) 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>