ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [council] Proposed Resolution re Domain Tasting

  • Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Resolution re Domain Tasting
  • From: Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:28:07 -0700
  • Cc: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <470D7208.7070404@tucows.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Organization: IP Justice
  • References: <037e01c80a0c$f06204a0$d1260de0$@com> <FE945C9A-6D09-4F7C-A3B0-28603CB8187D@acm.org> <470D7208.7070404@tucows.com>
  • Reply-to: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915

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.


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:


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 >>>