Re: [council] Proposed Resolution re Domain Tasting

[Thomas Keller <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>]

If we should go down the path of a PDP I would strongly suggest that we
create a working group instead of taking it on as a Committee of the
Whole. 

My reason for saying this is that I observed that council does not work 
very efficient if all of the policy work is conducted by this group. 
I would rather like to see the council evolve into a direction where we
are more managing and guiding the overall GNSO policy process instead of 
developing policy recommendations ourself. Spreading the councilor resource 
to thin will not help to deal with all issues the GNSO has on its plate.

As to the point of voting on this matter I have to agree with Robin that
we are not in a hurry and that the decision on whether we invoke a PDP
or not can easily wait until LA, which gives counilors (and I might speak
for the registrars reps only in this respect) more time to consult with
their constituencies.

Best,

tom

Am 10.10.2007 schrieb Robin Gross:
> 
> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> 
>