Re: [council] Motion to delay thick WHOIS PDP

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

Thanks Liz and all for moving this along.

Liz, on the Staff resource issue, let me ask you the question outright: does 
Staff feel it has the bandwidth to take on this extra work should the Council 
decide to do so?

The reason I am asking is that in past months, you have been very clear about 
the fact that Staff resources are stretched so thin that if the Council opted 
to start new work, it may need to consider dropping something else on its 
pending project list to accommodate the new requirement.

As you know, I think you have been absolutely right to make this point and to 
help the Council understand what staff resources it can expect to call on.

So I have to admit to being slightly confused at your apparent hesitation to 
cite the Staff resource issue in this motion, as Jonathan suggests doing. 
Although you are of course absolutely right: as far as I know, Staff has not 
been asked about their ability to take up this specific task and staff has been 
nothing short of stellar in their willingness to step up and take on any work 
that the Council has thrown at it up to known.

Thanks.

Stéphane



Le 11 avr. 2012 à 18:48, Liz Gasster a écrit :

> 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 
> on.
>  
> 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 
> meeting.
>  
> 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,
>  
>  
> Jonathan
>  
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: 04 April 2012 14:22
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO
> Subject: [council] Motion to delay thick WHOIS PDP
>  
> All,
>  
> 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: 
> http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X-3.9).
>  
> Motion attached.
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> <Motion to delay the 'thick' Whois PDP - 30 March 2012 LizG.doc>