ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] Proposed Motion for draft Final Report on Whois and Voting in LA

  • To: <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Motion for draft Final Report on Whois and Voting in LA
  • From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:37:54 -0700
  • Cc: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=serpent; d=yahoo-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:x-mimeole:content-class:mime-version: content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id: in-reply-to:x-ms-has-attach:x-ms-tnef-correlator:thread-topic: thread-index:references:from:to:cc:return-path:x-originalarrivaltime; b=N2+EHqMtAW9gYtylDdfFzAcPalgDEgLyB3RtrmBP0zw4tpzsBRca7Hy2QPioUOTh
  • In-reply-to: <46E6EA9E.4080908@tucows.com>
  • References: <3BA081BEFB35144DBD44B2F141C2C72703F08F40@cbiexm04dc.cov.com> <46E6E3F8.80008@tucows.com> <3A243602-371A-48CE-8A97-1A75C1F642BE@acm.org> <46E6EA9E.4080908@tucows.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Acf0qudzsaAa8KAFSwmjQsnhYNhxbgAB9F6g
  • Thread-topic: [council] Proposed Motion for draft Final Report on Whois and Voting in LA
Ross, are you arguing that it is appropriate to vote on your motion that
recommends an option (removing contract provisions) not considered by
the TF or WG, yet it is not appropriate to vote on a motion that
recommends further factfinding as suggested by the WG and the GAC?

I object to your motion on the grounds that such an option was not
discussed by the TF or WG, is not mentioned in either report, and
therefore has not been presented as an option for consideration by
Council at this time.  At minimum Council needs guidance as to likely
impacts from implementation of such an option, before we reasonably can
consider it.

Mike Rodenbaugh

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ross Rader
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 12:21 PM
To: Avri Doria
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Motion for draft Final Report on Whois
and Voting in LA

Avri Doria wrote:

> I see no basis for refusing the motion given the end process we have 
> adopted.

I am not sure that I understand this. I am certain that the bylaws are 
very clear on what our next steps should be, despite the twisted path we

have taken to get here. We cannot simply take a report and sit on it 
while we decide to gather further information. The proposition is 
fundamentally inconsistent with the path that the bylaws permit.

The Council does have considerable leeway in terms of what our response 
to the vote is. For instance, if the report does not have the support of

the Council, it is perfectly reasonable for us to consider further study

of the issue in an attempt to find a path forward. It is equally 
reasonable for us to consider a request of the board to sunset Whois 
provisions in the current contract in the event that we cannot find a 
path forward. But, we do not have this same leeway in terms of what our 
action in response to the receipt of this report is. We must vote on it 
and send the results of that vote to the Board.

This is the basis upon which I'm requesting that this motion, as worded,

be ruled out of order.

-- 
Regards,

Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
Tucows Inc.

http://www.domaindirect.com
t. 416.538.5492
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>