Thanks, Avri. This is helpful. The possibility of such a path is exactly why I was concerned about restricting our options so far ahead of constituency statements and public comments. Kristina -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 2:17 PM To: Rosette, Kristina Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: ISO clarification of "This overview should include the text of motions to be voted on at the end of this process" Hi, My reason for including proposal for motions in the draft report was to give people, constituencies and the public, a chance to comment on those as well as on the content of the reports. Nothing in the motion indicates that we cannot change motions or even submit new ones. Though, personally, I would hope that any new ones would happen because the constituencies and the public review sent us down a path we had not thought of already. I think it is best, if our general intentions were obvious from the beginning of the review. My proposal is to vote on as many proposal as we have when it comes time to vote. Optimally we would evolve to one consensus motion, but if that doeasn't happen then gauging things on the support various motions get may be the best indicator we can give to the board and staff. so I would think the answers would be: 1. no, but it would be a helpful indicator if there were a second from another constituency etc... 2. yes 3. no, but i think that any new motion should be tabled at least a week before the vote unless it really is a last minute revalation/ consensus that seems like a no-brainer to most all. thanks for asking. a. On 7 sep 2007, at 13.05, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
I need clarification of "This overview should include the text of motions to be voted on at the end of this process."
1. Must motions be seconded not later than September 11 in order to be included in the overview?
2. Can motions be amended or revised after September 11? After September 13?
3. Will the Council final vote during the LA public GNSO Council meeting be limited to those motions - and only those motions that have
been included in the "overview"?
My preferred answers are "no" (to 1), "yes" (to 2), and "no" (to 3).
If the answer to 2 is "no" and the answer to 3 is "yes," this process would seem to contradict the entire purpose of having Constituencies submit statements, providing a public comment period, and conducting a
Public-Council discussion. If the motions the Council will vote on in
LA will be set in stone by September 13, it seems to me that we are communicating to the ICANN community the message that we really don't care what they think. That's not a message I want to communicate.
Apologies for the "urgent" indicator, but the clock is ticking.
Kristina
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 7:06 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] Text of proposed final motions for Whois
hi,
This is in reference to:
1 - Staff will produce a Draft Final Report that references the Task Force report, the WG charter and the WG report and which includes an overall description of the process by September 13, 2007. This overview should include the text of motions to be voted on at the end
of this process.
In order for Liz G. to include the text of proposed final motions in the draft final report she is preparing, she needs to have the text by
Tuesday 11 September.
thanks
a.