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

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Rosette, Kristina 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 12:21 PM
To: 'Mike Rodenbaugh'
Cc: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] RE: [council] Motions re Domain Tasting

I think the substantive motion is missing some key words.  More
specifically, shouldn't "to a registrar" and "that registrar's"  be
inserted to specify applicability? I've inserted them  below in CAPS.  

a.      During any given month, an Applicable gTLD Operator may not
offer any refund TO A REGISTRAR for any domain names deleted during the
AGP that exceed (i) 10% of THAT REGISTRAR'S net new registrations in
that month (defined as total new registrations less domains deleted
during AGP), or (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater. 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 11:14 AM
To: 'Avri Doria'; 'Council GNSO'
Cc: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] RE: [council] Motions re Domain Tasting


You have it right now Avri, thanks.

-Mike

-----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


Hi,


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
passes.

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
Tasting 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 been 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, the "Reports on Domain Tasting");

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

The GNSO Council RESOLVES:

1. The Draft Motion shall be posted for 21-day public comment on March
7, 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 chooses.
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
submission 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
Constituency Impact Statements and to consider any suggested amendments
to the Draft Motion, and shall recommend a Final Motion to be considered
by Council for 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
that the Board may vote on any recommendations of the GNSO with respect
to this PDP, at the scheduled ICANN meeting in Paris in June, 2008

<insert text of DNT DT motion>

a.


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.