ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [council] Proposed Resolution re Domain Tasting

  • To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Resolution re Domain Tasting
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:12:15 -0400
  • In-reply-to: <C76C90D0-25E1-4281-8F9D-3ADE28B8AE3B@psg.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcgLgCFT1cizChOyR56rkEWN1f+0fwACmp7g
  • Thread-topic: [council] Proposed Resolution re Domain Tasting

Is there any reason why a task force could not function like a working
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." 


        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
        Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:46 PM
        To: Council GNSO
        Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Resolution re Domain Tasting

        Thanks for submitting the motion.

        My original planning for tomorrow's meeting had been to discuss
the report at this meting and then work our way toward a decision on a
PDP at the meeting on 31 Oct after the open comments.  Would this be
acceptable or do you think we should vote on it as soon as tomorrow. 

        In any case, as things currently stand in the bylaws we cannot
do a working group as the main vehicle in a PDP, but need to either use
a Committee of the Whole or a Task Force.   We can create Working Groups
for other purposes and as spins-off to investigate specific issues but
until the by-laws are changed, not for PDP processes.

        Please let me know if holding the vote on this motion until the
open meeting in LA is ok.


        On 9 okt 2007, at 02.40, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:


                I offer the following draft resolution, taken from the
Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group:


                Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges the Final
Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting, the Council
hereby initiates a Policy Development Process, and commissions a duly
constituted Working Group with the following Terms of Reference:


                1. Review and assess all the effects of domain tasting
activities that have been identified.


                2. Judge whether the overall effects justify measures to
be taken to impede domain tasting.


                3. If the answer to 2 is affirmative, then consider the
likely impacts upon the Constituencies of various potential measures,
and recommend measures designed to impede domain tasting.


                This Working Group shall report back to Council by
January 24, 2008.


                I am sure this needs additional language about PDPs, at
least, but thought this would be a good start for discussion.


                Kind regards,


                Mike Rodenbaugh

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