Thanks
Avri. I saw the agenda for the meeting and it said ‘decision on
next step’ and so I propose that the next step is to move this issue forward
in policy development. Thanks for the reference to the bylaws: http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA-8.
I
copy Secs. 4 and 8 below. I do not know if Sec. 8 has ever been used, but
it seems to me to make sense in this situation, where we have already done a
lot of factfinding, and the adverse effects of this activity have been ongoing
and increasing for two years. I honestly don’t think any working group
or a task force is needed at this point. I think the situation warrants multiple,
prompt measures to impede commercial domain tasting, and now I see that the PDP
gives another option which seems to fit well in this circumstance. So, I
would like to propose a different motion, please.
If
1/3 of the Councilors vote for a PDP on this per Section 4, then Council has
two options. One option is a task force detailed in Section 7, the other
option is ‘collect information’ for Council deliberation per
Section 8. As we have already collected a lot of information, I think
this would mean further gathering of formal Constituency Statements within 35
days, then issuance of a Staff report 15 days later which combines those
Statements with the Report of the ad hoc Group and the original Issues Report,
and any other information desired and obtained in the meanwhile. That
report would issue for 20-day public comment, then Council would deliberate and
make recommendations to the Board within 15 days from then.
That
should be sometime in January, whether we vote on it tomorrow or in LA, and
with some slippage in the schedule. I would prefer to vote on it tomorrow
so that we can move forward, have live discussions on it during Constituency
Day and perhaps otherwise in LA, with the Constituency Statements due a couple
weeks later. If there seems strong reason to postpone this vote, then I
could be OK with that. Very interested to hear others’ views.
My
new proposed motion:
Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges the
Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting, the Council hereby
initiates a Policy Development Process, and pursuant to Sections 4 and 8 of
Annex A of the Bylaws, resolves as follows:
1.
To
request that each constituency appoint a representative to solicit the
constituency's views on the issues presented in the Issues Report by Staff and in
the Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group. Each such representative is
asked to submit a Constituency Statement to Olof Nordling within thirty-five
(35) calendar days of this resolution.
2.
To
request that ICANN Staff take all Constituency Statements, the two prior
reports, and other information and compile (and post on the Comment Site) an
Initial Report within fifty (50) calendar days of this resolution.
3.
Thereafter,
the PDP shall follow the provisions of Item 9 of Annex A of the Bylaws, in
creating a Final Report for Council.
My
apologies for not understanding this option previously.
Thanks,
Mike
Rodenbaugh
At the meeting of the Council initiating the PDP, the Council shall decide,
by a majority vote of members present at the meeting, whether to appoint a task
force to address the issue. If the Council votes:
a. In favor of convening a task force, it shall do so
in accordance with the provisions of Item
7 below.
b. Against convening a task force, then it will
collect information on the policy issue in accordance with the provisions of Item
8 below.
8. Procedure if No Task Force is Formed
a. If the Council decides not to convene a task force,
the Council will request that, within ten (10) calendar days thereafter, each
constituency appoint a representative to solicit the constituency's views on
the issue. Each such representative shall be asked to submit a Constituency
Statement to the Staff Manager within thirty-five (35) calendar days after
initiation of the PDP.
b. The Council may also pursue other options that it
deems appropriate to assist in the PDP, including appointing a particular
individual or organization to gather information on the issue or scheduling
meetings for deliberation or briefing. All such information shall be submitted
to the Staff Manager within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of
the PDP.
c. The Staff Manager will take all Constituency
Statements, Public Comment Statements, and other information and compile (and
post on the Comment Site) an Initial Report within fifty (50) calendar days
after initiation of the PDP. Thereafter, the PDP shall follow the provisions of
Item 9 below in creating a Final Report.
From:
owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf
Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:46 PM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Resolution re Domain Tasting
Hi,
Thanks for submitting the motion.
My original planning for tomorrow's meeting had been to
discuss the report at this meting and then work our way toward a decision on a
PDP at the meeting on 31 Oct after the open comments. Would this be
acceptable or do you think we should vote on it as soon as tomorrow.
In any case, as things currently stand in the bylaws we
cannot do a working group as the main vehicle in a PDP, but need to either use
a Committee of the Whole or a Task Force. We can create
Working Groups for other purposes and as spins-off to investigate specific
issues but until the by-laws are changed, not for PDP processes.
Please let me know if holding the vote on this motion until
the open meeting in LA is ok.
thanks
a.
On 9 okt 2007, at 02.40, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
I offer the following draft resolution, taken from the Final
Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group:
Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges the Final Outcomes Report
of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting, the Council hereby initiates a Policy
Development Process, and commissions a duly constituted Working Group with the
following Terms of Reference:
1. Review and assess all the
effects of domain tasting activities that have been identified.
2. Judge whether the overall
effects justify measures to be taken to impede domain tasting.
3. If the answer to 2 is
affirmative, then consider the likely impacts upon the Constituencies of
various potential measures, and recommend measures designed to impede domain
tasting.
This Working Group shall report back to Council by January 24,
2008.
I am sure this needs additional language about PDPs, at least, but
thought this would be a good start for discussion.
Kind regards,
Mike Rodenbaugh