ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [council] Motion to delay thick WHOIS PDP

  • To: Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>, 'Stéphane Van Gelder' <Stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] Motion to delay thick WHOIS PDP
  • From: Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:48:59 -0700
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Acceptlanguage: en-US
  • In-reply-to: <00e201cd17f8$50903a10$f1b0ae30$@ipracon.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <F593E70C-DD92-468A-8FFD-EB8E9F69032C@indom.com> <00e201cd17f8$50903a10$f1b0ae30$@ipracon.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AQHFFzwJAr9Wc/sTse5WwrFzLSi3nJalvnuggAAWmDA=
  • Thread-topic: [council] Motion to delay thick WHOIS PDP

Dear Jonathan and all,

I would respectfully like to make two friendly suggestions to this motion (I've 
redlined in the attached):

1.       To delete reference to ICANN staff resources.  Staff has not been 
asked about our specific resources available to do this PDP (we are constrained 
overall but we have consistently stepped up to new work, if sometimes making 
modified arrangements to address workload).  So I am not comfortable with the 
language making this a staff workload issue.  I understand the issue of GNSO 
community resources, so that language is retained in my suggested edit.

2.       To add a "date certain" which still would need to be inserted.  The 
end time for a delay needs to be specifically defined, even if adjusted later 

I'm happy to explain these suggestions further.  Thanks so much for considering.

Best regards, Liz

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 8:33 AM
To: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Motion to delay thick WHOIS PDP

Dear Stéphane & fellow councillors,

We have today discussed this motion during the course of the Registries SG 

A concern was expressed and discussed in some detail about the reason for delay 
and directly linking a PDP process (on Thick WHOIS) with contractual 
negotiations (on .com).
The PDP process and the contractual negotiation processes are essentially 
distinct and separate processes.

Therefore, I'd like to propose a friendly amendment to modify the motion in 
order to deal with this concern.

I have attached suggested re-wording of the motion to accommodate this concern.

Best wishes,


From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
 On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: 04 April 2012 14:22
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> GNSO
Subject: [council] Motion to delay thick WHOIS PDP


You will remember that in CR the Council expressed a desire to delay the thick 
whois PDP.

Since then, the Council leadership and Staff have discussed this at length.

First, it has been deemed necessary to have a formal motion to do this. Due to 
the deadline for motions being today, I have asked that a motion to that effect 
be prepared and I am submitting this today. I am doing this as Chair, from an 
administrative point of view, to help see this process moved forward.

Second, we've had extensive discussions on what voting threshold should be used 
for this motion. In the end, we have ascertained that as there is no specific 
reference to a PDP suspension process in the bylaws, the default threshold 
should be used (see bylaws section 3.9: 

Motion attached.


Attachment: Motion to delay the 'thick' Whois PDP - 30 March 2012 LizG.doc
Description: Motion to delay the 'thick' Whois PDP - 30 March 2012 LizG.doc

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