ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [gnso-dt-wg] RE: [council] Motions re Domain Tasting

  • To: "'Avri Doria'" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] RE: [council] Motions re Domain Tasting
  • From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxrodenbaugh@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 08:14:29 -0800
  • Cc: <gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:Thread-Index:Content-Language; b=NLa1US6ywSlsjFyw/vCExNg+fqjvU8DehrWh1cNqgSWLJHsJtIZjNEH2CK4bdJtQ9+XjHQvzGPrVcVqRhOVXTLUjkzvpaGPQF+eNVJA4A+Gpsit8L8YSRmZNvZs1R5xXNl5IT1fahKDbzsxXdSax2j+lk2yQWYEgk9GdMcXSzEE= ;
  • In-reply-to: <42C10022-F1AB-47FA-9E1D-F66D9DF7D015@psg.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <20080305081425.4a871ae7d05d2c98d9abb595d392cd69.0fbb13050c.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <42C10022-F1AB-47FA-9E1D-F66D9DF7D015@psg.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Ach+2c4M7Qr3yi2dSDScqme5WOFyvAAAiDNg

You have it right now Avri, thanks.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 7:53 AM
To: Council GNSO
Cc: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-dt-wg] RE: [council] Motions re Domain Tasting


I see  no reason why, if the recommendation from the DT for a  
constituency and public review of the motion before proceeding is  
approved, to not also send a request to legal counsel asking for an  
opinion on whether the motion is within scope.  I think it can all be  
done in parallel and will undertake to make this request if the motion  

BTW, speaking of this,  I believe the motion as listed in the Agenda  
is not incorrect.  In this case it looks like we are being asked to  
vote on the motion regarding AGP itself as opposed to actually voting  
on a Motion to send the proposed motion out for a 21 day period during  
which constituency statements could be updated and public comments  
could be collected.

If I understand correctly, I suggest the following motion is what we  
are voting on (I have updated the wiki):

Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain  
and the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting;

Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a PDP on
Domain Tasting and to request Constituency Impact Statements with  
respect to
issues set forth in the Issues Report and in the Final Outcomes Report;

Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the formation  
of a
small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the Domain
Tasting PDP (the "Design Team"), the principal volunteers to which had  
members of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were well-informed  
of both
the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and  
the GNSO
Initial Report on Domain Tasting (collectively with the Issues Report,  
"Reports on Domain Tasting");

Whereas, the Design Team has met and agreed on a Draft Motion attached  
be set out for public comment and for Constituency Impact review;


1. The Draft Motion shall be posted for 21-day public comment on March  
2008. Each Constituency shall have 21 days from March 7, 2008 to  
update its
Constituency Impact Statement with respect to this motion, if it so  
The deadline for amended Statements shall be March 28, 2008.

2. ICANN Staff please shall provide a summary of any public comments
and/or amended Constituency Impact Statements to the Council, via  
of a Final Report with respect to this PDP, by April 4, 2008.

3. The Design Team shall then meet and confer with respect to the Final
Report, in order to consider any public comments and/or amended  
Impact Statements and to consider any suggested amendments to the Draft
Motion, and shall recommend a Final Motion to be considered by Council  
vote in its scheduled meeting April 17, 2008.

4. It is the intention of the GNSO for the Staff to produce a Board
Report on this PDP for consideration by the ICANN Board, in the hope  
the Board may vote on any recommendations of the GNSO with respect to  
PDP, at the scheduled ICANN meeting in Paris in June, 2008

<insert text of DNT DT motion>


On 5 Mar 2008, at 10:14, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> The Staff and Counsel may have stated the
> opinion that tasting was within scope, but that doesn't mean that  
> every
> element of any policy proposal we come up is viable under current
> contracts. That's all we're saying. If the Council does send something
> to the Board it just seems reasonable that if there is a question  
> about
> it actually being implementable that we first try to resolve that.

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