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

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

And Ross's motion as well?

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: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 10:08 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria; GNSO Council
> Subject: RE: [council] Motions under AOB for council meeting 
> September 6 2007
> 
> It is an attempt to capture the key portions of Avri's and 
> the BC motion.
> 
> 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 Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 6:52 AM
> To: Avri Doria; GNSO Council
> Subject: RE: [council] Motions under AOB for council meeting 
> September 6
> 2007
> 
> 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>
> > 
> > 
> 
>