John,

Thanks for your questions. I am copying the Council list.

On item 3, that is a discussion for the meeting itself. This agenda item stems from the Council's decision, taken in CR, to delay on this PDP. We are acting on that decision.

On item 5, this was proposed by one of the VCs. It is a question being asked. Once again, I would suggest that we not preempt the very discussion we are trying to have by starting it now, but instead have it during the call. If there is no topic here, then that is what our minutes for the meeting will say and we can all move on. But the Council may welcome the chance to discuss this.

Stéphane



Le 10 avr. 2012 à 17:40, <john@crediblecontext.com> a écrit :

Gentlemen,

With regard to:

Item 3: Thick Whois Policy Development Process (PDP)10 minutes)
The GNSO Council initiated a PDP at its meeting on 14 March. However, considering other circumstances, the GNSO Council is of the view that the next steps in this PDP (formation of a drafting team to develop a charter) is not timely and that it may be preferable to delay until the .COM negotiations have been completed. This motion provides for that delay.

The BC argued that the motion would muddy the waters with regard to the RAA negotiations, but we were unconvincing.  How does this conflate with the .com contract now?  When did that happen?

With regard to:

Item 5: GNSO Council comment on .COM contract renewal (10 minutes)
In its announcement on the .COM contract renewal dated 27 March 2012 (http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-27mar12-en.htm) ICANN states that the question of transitioning a large existing registry to thick WHOIS has been recognised by the GNSO as raising operational and other issues that require further discussion and consideration (http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-27mar12-en.htm).
So Council discussions are being cited as the rationale for the fact that the 2012 .COM contract contains no obligations on the registry operator to switch to a thick WHOIS format. Considering the debate that went on at Council level on this issue, the Council may deem this to be a misrepresentation of the truth. If so, the Council may then wish to draft a statement outlining this and direct the Chair to send it to the Board.

How did this get on the agenda?  Are we responding in a fit of pique?  It seems we are leapfrogging the public comment period.

Cheers,

John Berard
Founder
Credible Context
58 West Portal Avenue, #291
San Francisco, CA 94127
m: 415.845.4388