RE: [council] Proposed Resolution re Domain Tasting

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Section 8 was used for the new gTLD PDP.
 
Regards,
Bruce
 


________________________________

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
        Sent: Thursday, 11 October 2007 11:04 AM
        To: 'Council GNSO'
        Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Resolution re Domain Tasting
        
        

        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 7 below
<http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA-7
> .

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

        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