RE: [council] Proposed Resolution re Domain Tasting

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxrodenbaugh@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Avri.  I saw the agenda for the meeting and it said 'decision on next
step' and so I propose that the next step is to move this issue forward in
policy development.  Thanks for the reference to the bylaws:
<http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA-8>
http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA-8.

 

I copy Secs. 4 and 8 below.  I do not know if Sec. 8 has ever been used, but
it seems to me to make sense in this situation, where we have already done a
lot of factfinding, and the adverse effects of this activity have been
ongoing and increasing for two years.  I honestly don't think any working
group or a task force is needed at this point.  I think the situation
warrants multiple, prompt measures to impede commercial domain tasting, and
now I see that the PDP gives another option which seems to fit well in this
circumstance.  So, I would like to propose a different motion, please. 

 

If 1/3 of the Councilors vote for a PDP on this per Section 4, then Council
has two options.  One option is a task force detailed in Section 7, the
other option is 'collect information' for Council deliberation per Section
8.  As we have already collected a lot of information, I think this would
mean further gathering of formal Constituency Statements within 35 days,
then issuance of a Staff report 15 days later which combines those
Statements with the Report of the ad hoc Group and the original Issues
Report, and any other information desired and obtained in the meanwhile.
That report would issue for 20-day public comment, then Council would
deliberate and make recommendations to the Board within 15 days from then.  

 

That should be sometime in January, whether we vote on it tomorrow or in LA,
and with some slippage in the schedule.  I would prefer to vote on it
tomorrow so that we can move forward, have live discussions on it during
Constituency Day and perhaps otherwise in LA, with the Constituency
Statements due a couple weeks later.  If there seems strong reason to
postpone this vote, then I could be OK with that.  Very interested to hear
others' views.

 

My new proposed motion:

 

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 pursuant to Sections 4 and 8 of Annex A of the
Bylaws, resolves as follows:

 

1.     To request that each constituency appoint a representative to solicit
the constituency's views on the issues presented in the Issues Report by
Staff and in the Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group.  Each such
representative is asked to submit a Constituency Statement to Olof Nordling
within thirty-five (35) calendar days of this resolution.

2.     To request that ICANN Staff take all Constituency Statements, the two
prior reports, and other information and compile (and post on the Comment
Site) an Initial Report within fifty (50) calendar days of this resolution. 

3.     Thereafter, the PDP shall follow the provisions of Item 9 of Annex A
of the Bylaws, in creating a Final Report for Council.

 

My apologies for not understanding this option previously.  

Thanks,

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

4. Commencement of the PDP

At the meeting of the Council initiating the PDP, the Council shall decide,
by a majority vote of members present at the meeting, whether to appoint a
task force to address the issue. If the Council votes:

a. In favor of convening a task force, it shall do so in accordance with the
provisions of Item
<http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA-7>  7
below.

b. Against convening a task force, then it will collect information on the
policy issue in accordance with the provisions of Item
<http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA-8>  8
below.

8. Procedure if No Task Force is Formed

a. If the Council decides not to convene a task force, the Council will
request that, within ten (10) calendar days thereafter, each constituency
appoint a representative to solicit the constituency's views on the issue.
Each such representative shall be asked to submit a Constituency Statement
to the Staff Manager within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation
of the PDP.

b. The Council may also pursue other options that it deems appropriate to
assist in the PDP, including appointing a particular individual or
organization to gather information on the issue or scheduling meetings for
deliberation or briefing. All such information shall be submitted to the
Staff Manager within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the
PDP.

c. The Staff Manager will take all Constituency Statements, Public Comment
Statements, and other information and compile (and post on the Comment Site)
an Initial Report within fifty (50) calendar days after initiation of the
PDP. Thereafter, the PDP shall follow the provisions of Item 9 below in
creating a Final Report.

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:46 PM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Resolution re Domain Tasting

 

Hi,

 

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.

 

thanks

a.

 

 

 

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