RE: [council] Motion to delay thick WHOIS PDP

["Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

 

It seems clear that there are two key themes here:

 

1.       The first is the resource issue which encompasses GNSO resources in
general be they staff or broader community.
Recognising this and the comments from staff that resources may become
available, it seems that we do need to consider removing specific reference
to staff resources in the motion and keep the reference to resources more
generally.

2.       The second is the timing and a date certain.
In this case there is an issue of principal (not formally linking contract
negotiations and policy development) and also initiating an interminable
delay or at least a delay with no end point.
However, this principal or these principals shouldn?t affect our common
sense view of this.  The latter may well mean that we agree a date certain
which happens to occur at or near to the date we had in the original motion
such that the work (if indeed it remains necessary) takes account of all
relevant information, including any that may come out of contractual
negotiations.

 

I trust this is a helpful nudge forwards and broadly consistent with other
postings on this subject.

 

Best wishes,

 

 

Jonathan

 

From: Liz Gasster [mailto:liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 11 April 2012 22:26
To: Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc: Jonathan Robinson; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Motion to delay thick WHOIS PDP

 

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] 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>