![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/0818eaedcadf930eebdbcded850e89db.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Dear all, Some information which may help your deliberations on this issue: The Preliminary Task Force report - which described in detail the compromise the task force reached - was posted for public comments from 12 September to 2 October 2005. Seven comments were received. These were compiled in the Final Task Force Report which the Council voted on during the 28 November meeting. The Final Task Force Report has been posted on the ICANN website, and prominently featured on the GNSO home page, since 11 November, 2005. This issue was also included in Whois Task Force Chair, Jordyn Buchanan's presentations to the GNSO Public Forum in Mar del Plata and Luxembourg. The bylaws state that a public comment period is called for when a recommendation goes from Council to the Board if the proposal will have an impact on the overall operation of the DNS. The Board's role in this respect is not to weigh up the policy aspects but to ensure that the decision-making is not flawed and that the proposal will not have an adverse effect on the DNS. As this recommendation's main objective was to create an exception procedure to deal with a specific and to date unknown exception to compliance with a section of the bylaws, staff's judgement is that it does not meet the criteria that require a further public comment period. Staff will of course respect the Council's wishes on this if the Council decides that this judgement is in error. All the best, Maria -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 6:29 PM To: Thomas Keller Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] RE: Council report required for the Board on the recently approved WHOIS recommendation Hi, I understand how much consultation has gone into coming up to the compromise. But has the compromise itself been commented on? In any case, I think that every stage of recommendation and decision should be subject to public comment. so as it moves from the council with its responsibility for recommending policy to the board with its responsibility for due diligence and for approving policy, i think there is a reasonable opportunity for public comment. a. On 22 dec 2005, at 11.10, Thomas Keller wrote:
just to make my point clearer. I don´t see why yet another round of public comments would do any good, the arguments haven´t changed for the last three years and that is the "compromise" the taskforce came up with.
tom
Am 22.12.2005 schrieb Thomas Keller:
Avri,
this recommendation has already been through various iterations of public comments at the taskforce and council level. What is presented to the board now is the final product of ICANNs policy body for gTLDs created through the ICANN policy process. As the board is not policy body itself it should not have a look at the recomendation in that respect but rather in terms of possible flaws or errors making the policy unworkable.
Best,
tom