RE: [council] Proposed Resolution re Domain Tasting

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I totally agree with Tom regarding use of a task force.  If a PDP is
intiated, a task force should be created.  We have to get past the point
where the Council does all or most of the work.  Both the
recommendations of the LSE and the draft suggestions from the BGC WG
advocate this approach.  Moreover, the RyC constituency statement on
GNSO improvement submitted a long time ago, specifically supported this
approach.

Chuck Gomes
 
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas Keller
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:26 AM
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Resolution re Domain Tasting
> 
> 
> 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
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>