Re: [council] Proposed Resolution re Domain Tasting

[Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm concerned that we are moving too fast with this issue.  I still 
haven't seen why this is such a pressing concern and I haven't been 
convinced a PDP is the right next step.   I think more work needs to be 
done to justify the need for a PDP rather than just assume that is the 
next course and hurry to get there.
Robin



Ross Rader wrote:

> presuming this goes down the PDP path, the council should attempt to 
> do so within the confines of the process outlined in the bylaws.
> not to sound critical, but why does this keep getting ignored?
>
> The motion should be amended to strike the proposed timelines and 
> instead use those found in the PDP as outlined in the bylaws. I'm not 
> in favor of assuming, out of the gate, that we can't work within the 
> timelines required by the PDP. If this is the case, then I'm likely 
> inclined to believe that we have too much work in front of us to 
> reasonably proceed along the timelines specified and we've prioritized 
> our efforts badly. If we have too much work in front of us, then we 
> shouldn't be voting in favor of every PDP request that comes down the 
> pike.
> Avri Doria wrote:
>
> > 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