Re: [council] Proposed Motion concerning Council communication to ICANN BoD regarding lack of Whois consensus

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Although this motion is not intended to effect change in the
Whois PDP process, I understand that it might be withdrawn
should the council vote to bring the PDP to closure. I think its
content, which is an advisory to the board, deserves
consideration and I don't really see any basis for a systematic
requirement of public and community discussions as a condition
before any communication be issued by the council to the board.
I therefore second this resolution proposal.
Thanks,

Mawaki

--- Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> In the event that there is not a majority vote of Council in
> favor of 
> the resolution put forward by Avri pursuant to the
> requirements of the 
> policy development process and therefore resulting in no
> policy 
> recommendation to the ICANN Board, I would like to table the
> following 
> resolution. Should Avri's motion pass with the majority
> support of 
> Council, I will withdraw this motion at the appropriate time
> and it will 
> not require the consideration of the Council.
> 
> In other words, this is a conditional motion that will require
> a second, 
> but may be withdrawn if it is established that there is
> actually some 
> level of agreement concerning the recommendations of the Task
> Force.
> 
> I would also note that the effect of this motion will be to
> require 
> council to make a communication to the board of directors on
> the subject 
> matter at hand. Communications from the Council to the Board
> are 
> considered advisory and non-binding in nature, but may be
> considered as 
> guidance concerning specific matters such as this.
> 
> Text of Motion:
> ---
> 
> Whereas;
> 
> (i) The GNSO Council has considered the reports of the Whois
> Working 
> Group and Whois Task Force, and;
> (ii) That the GNSO Council vote on resolution [XXXXX] failed
> to produce 
> supermajority or majority support for the recommendations of
> the report 
> of the Task Force, and;
> (iii) The GNSO Council considers that the results of this vote
> signifies 
> the continued lack of consensus on the key issues and possible
> solutions 
> to those issues, both within the Council, the GNSO and between
> key 
> stakeholder groups, and;
> (iv) The GNSO Council recognizes that there is no standing
> consensus 
> policy concerning the management of the Whois service and data
> provided 
> to the public through that service by ICANN's contracted
> commercial 
> operators, the registries and registrars. save and except the
> Whois Data 
> Reminder Policy and the Whois Marketing Restriction Policy,
> and;
> (v) That significant policy must have the support of the
> Internet and 
> DNS community and without that support, those policies cannot
> be 
> reasonably implemented or enforced.
> 
> Therefore be it resolved;
> 
> (i) That, with regret, the GNSO Council advises the ICANN
> staff and 
> Board of Directors of the lack of general consensus on the key
> issues 
> and solutions pertaining to gTLD Whois, and;
> (ii) That due to this lack of consensus the GNSO Council
> recommends that 
> the Board consider "sunsetting" the existing current
> contractual 
> requirements concerning Whois for registries, registrars and
> registrants 
> that are not supported by consensus policy by removing these
> unsupported 
> provisions from the current operating agreements between ICANN
> and its 
> contracted parties, and;
> (iii) That these provisions be sunset  no later than the end
> of the 2008 
> ICANN Annual General Meeting and;
> (iv) That such provisions will remain sunset until such time
> that 
> consensus policy in this area has been developed to replace
> the sunset 
> provisions, at which point they will be eliminated or
> modified.
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Ross Rader
> Director, Retail Services
> Tucows Inc.
> 
> http://www.domaindirect.com
> t. 416.538.5492
>