Thanks Stéphane, I accept the way the motion was presented. I fully support that we need the information required. And I saw a chance to get it easier. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. März 2011 11:05 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Cc: wendy@seltzer.com; tim@godaddy.com; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: AW: [council] Whois motion Hi Wolf, The motion has been properly made and seconded. We cannot just to choose to ignore it. There will be ample opportunity to discuss during our weekend sessions. Thanks, Stéphane Le 9 mars 2011 à 10:34, <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit :
I do not understand why we need a formal motion on this questions. Why don't we just ask staff to provide this information to the meeting in SF - maybe at the weekend sessions or at the public meeting. I'm sure they could provide us with this managerial type of information requested that time. And that's their daily business. After years of discussing for- and backwards it's time to conclude. If we don't I fear the same questions will repeatedly come up after a certain while since the study process may change.
My request is to ask staff to provide this information to the SF meeting(s). Then we can see whether this motion is still necessary.
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. März 2011 23:30 An: Wendy Seltzer Cc: Tim Ruiz; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: [council] Whois motion
Thanks Wendy.
So we now have two motions on WHOIS. I suggest we vote on Tim's motion first and only vote on John's if Tim's fails. There is no sense in voting on actually carrying the studies out if the Council has just decided to ask for more information before deciding whether to do so or not.
Stéphane
Le 8 mars 2011 à 23:21, Wendy Seltzer a écrit :
I second.
--Wendy
On 03/08/2011 05:18 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Thanks Tim,
Is there a second for this motion?
Stéphane
Le 8 mars 2011 à 21:52, Tim Ruiz a écrit :
I would prefer to have some additional information before voting on more studies:
1. An update on the current study already in progress, with estimated completion date and then next steps on that for Staff and Council.
2. Information or report from Staff on resources required for the above over the rest of the fiscal year, and Staff resources that are available to follow through on additional studies the rest of this fiscal year.
3. Information or report from ICANN's CFO or other appropriate Staff on money still available for further studies this fiscal year.
The above information will help us make responsible decisions about how best to use the resources that are made available to us. If a motion is required to do this, then I so move:
Whereas the GNSO Council must make decisions on which pending Whois Studies are yet to be pursued (link to appropriate Staff reports on cost and feasibility studies); and
Whereas the GNSO Council wishes to make fiscally responsible decisions; therefore be it
Resolved that the GNSO Council asks Staff to provide as soon as reasonably possible:
1. An update on the current Whois Study already in progress, with estimated completion date and then next steps on that for Staff and Council.
2. Information or report on resources required for the above over the rest of the fiscal year, and Staff resources that are available to follow through on additional studies the rest of this fiscal year.
3. Information or report from ICANN's CFO or other appropriate Staff on money still available for further studies this fiscal year.
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/