<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Re: 2 questions about our Council agenda
- To: "Stéphane_Van_Gelder" <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] Re: 2 questions about our Council agenda
- From: <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:14:30 -0700
- Cc: "Neuman Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Wolf-Ulrich Knoben" <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Workspace Webmail 5.6.15
<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt;"><div>Stephane,</div><div><br></div><div>In this context, what
is a VC?<br></div><div><br></div><div>John
Berard</div><div>Founder</div><div>Credible Context</div><div>58 West Portal
Avenue, #291</div><div>San Francisco, CA 94127</div><div>m:
415.845.4388</div><div><br><br></div>
<blockquote id="replyBlockquote" webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid
blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size:10pt; color:black;
font-family:verdana;">
<div id="wmQuoteWrapper">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: [council] Re: 2 questions about our Council agenda<br>
From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <<a
href="mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx";>stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
Date: Tue, April 10, 2012 8:51 am<br>
To: <<a
href="mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
Cc: Neuman Jeff <<a
href="mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx";>Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx</a>>,
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben<br>
<<a href="mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx";>KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx</a>>,
"<<a href="mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>>
GNSO"<br>
<<a href="mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
<br>
John,<div><br></div><div>Thanks for your questions. I am copying the Council
list.</div><div><br></div><div>On item 3, that is a discussion for the meeting
itself. This agenda item stems from the Council's decision, taken in CR, to
delay on this PDP. We are acting on that decision.</div><div><br></div><div>On
item 5, this was proposed by one of the VCs. It is a question being asked. Once
again, I would suggest that we not preempt the very discussion we are trying to
have by starting it now, but instead have it during the call. If there is no
topic here, then that is what our minutes for the meeting will say and we can
all move on. But the Council may welcome the chance to discuss
this.</div><div><br><div> <span class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium;
"><div>Stéphane</div><div><br></div></span><br
class="Apple-interchange-newline"> </div> <br><div><div>Le 10 avr. 2012 à
17:40, <<a target="_blank"
href="mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>> a écrit
:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"
style="border-left: blue 2px solid; margin-left: 8px; padding-left:
8px;"><div><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt;"><div>Gentlemen,</div><div><br></div><div>With regard
to:</div><div><br></div><div><b><ins>Item 3: Thick Whois Policy Development
Process (PDP)10 minutes)</ins></b></div><div> The GNSO Council initiated a PDP
at its meeting on 14 March. However, considering other circumstances, the GNSO
Council is of the view that the next steps in this PDP (formation of a drafting
team to develop a charter) is not timely and that it may be preferable to delay
until the .COM negotiations have been completed. This motion provides for that
delay. </div><div><br></div><div>The BC argued that the motion would muddy the
waters with regard to the RAA negotiations, but we were unconvincing. How
does this conflate with the .com contract now? When did that
happen?</div><div><br></div><div>With regard
to:</div><div><br></div><div><b><ins>Item 5: GNSO Council comment on .COM
contract renewal (10 minutes)</ins></b> <br class="atl-forced-newline"></div>
<div>In its announcement on the .COM contract renewal dated 27 March 2012 (<a
target="_blank"
href="http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-27mar12-en.htm";
class="external-link"
rel="nofollow">http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-27mar12-en.htm</a>)
ICANN states that the question of transitioning a large existing registry to
thick WHOIS has been recognised by the GNSO as raising operational and other
issues that require further discussion and consideration (<a target="_blank"
href="http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-27mar12-en.htm";
class="external-link"
rel="nofollow">http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-27mar12-en.htm</a>).
<br class="atl-forced-newline"></div><div> So Council discussions are being
cited as the rationale for the fact that the 2012 .COM contract contains no
obligations on the registry operator to switch to a thick WHOIS format.
Considering the debate that went on at Council level on this issue, the Council
may deem this to be a misrepresentation of the truth. If so, the Council may
then wish to draft a statement outlining this and direct the Chair to send it
to the Board. </div><div><br></div><div>How did this get on the agenda?
Are we responding in a fit of pique? It seems we are leapfrogging the
public comment
period.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,<br></div><div><br></div><div>John
Berard</div><div>Founder</div><div>Credible Context</div><div>58 West Portal
Avenue, #291</div><div>San Francisco, CA 94127</div><div>m:
415.845.4388</div></span></div> </blockquote></div><br></div>
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|