Re: [council] Re: 2 questions about our Council agenda

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Vice Chair

Stéphane



Le 10 avr. 2012 à 19:14, <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> Stephane,
> 
> In this context, what is a VC?
> 
> John Berard
> Founder
> Credible Context
> 58 West Portal Avenue, #291
> San Francisco, CA 94127
> m: 415.845.4388
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] Re: 2 questions about our Council agenda
> From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, April 10, 2012 8:51 am
> To: <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Neuman Jeff <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>, "<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> GNSO"
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> John,
> 
> Thanks for your questions. I am copying the Council list.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 
> 
> Le 10 avr. 2012 à 17:40, <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> 
>> Gentlemen,
>> 
>> With regard to:
>> 
>> Item 3: Thick Whois Policy Development Process (PDP)10 minutes)
>> 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.
>> 
>> 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?
>> 
>> With regard to:
>> 
>> Item 5: GNSO Council comment on .COM contract renewal (10 minutes) 
>> In its announcement on the .COM contract renewal dated 27 March 2012 
>> (http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-27mar12-en.htm) 
>> 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 
>> (http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-27mar12-en.htm). 
>> 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.
>> 
>> How did this get on the agenda?  Are we responding in a fit of pique?  It 
>> seems we are leapfrogging the public comment period.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> John Berard
>> Founder
>> Credible Context
>> 58 West Portal Avenue, #291
>> San Francisco, CA 94127
>> m: 415.845.4388
>