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

[John Berard <johnberard@xxxxxxx>]

 Of course.  I am in a fog

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
To: john <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Neuman Jeff <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben 
<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tue, Apr 10, 2012 10:24 am
Subject: Re: [council] Re: 2 questions about our Council agenda


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