RE: [council] Motion to delay thick WHOIS PDP

[Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Stéphane and all,

I really appreciate the concerns about staff workload, which continue to be 
significant.  In this case, Marika has just completed the implementation of the 
PDP revision and the PEDNR PDP, and has almost completed the IRTP part B PDP, 
so if the Council elected to proceed, her work load is freeing up a bit, and 
she would be in a position to support this WG.  Steve Sheng would also be 
available to assist with any technical matters.  This assumes that there is 
sufficient GNSO community bandwidth to participate in the WG, it is much harder 
for staff to support a group when community participation is spotty.

Best, Liz

From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:Stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 1:09 PM
To: Liz Gasster
Cc: Jonathan Robinson; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Motion to delay thick WHOIS PDP

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> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]>
 On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 8:33 AM
To: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[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

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>