-----Original Message----- From: Rosette, Kristina Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 12:21 PM To: 'Mike Rodenbaugh' Cc: gnso-dt-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] RE: [council] Motions re Domain Tasting I think the substantive motion is missing some key words. More specifically, shouldn't "to a registrar" and "that registrar's" be inserted to specify applicability? I've inserted them below in CAPS. a. During any given month, an Applicable gTLD Operator may not offer any refund TO A REGISTRAR for any domain names deleted during the AGP that exceed (i) 10% of THAT REGISTRAR'S net new registrations in that month (defined as total new registrations less domains deleted during AGP), or (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 11:14 AM To: 'Avri Doria'; 'Council GNSO' Cc: gnso-dt-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] RE: [council] Motions re Domain Tasting You have it right now Avri, thanks. -Mike -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 7:53 AM To: Council GNSO Cc: gnso-dt-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-dt-wg] RE: [council] Motions re Domain Tasting Hi, I see no reason why, if the recommendation from the DT for a constituency and public review of the motion before proceeding is approved, to not also send a request to legal counsel asking for an opinion on whether the motion is within scope. I think it can all be done in parallel and will undertake to make this request if the motion passes. BTW, speaking of this, I believe the motion as listed in the Agenda is not incorrect. In this case it looks like we are being asked to vote on the motion regarding AGP itself as opposed to actually voting on a Motion to send the proposed motion out for a 21 day period during which constituency statements could be updated and public comments could be collected. If I understand correctly, I suggest the following motion is what we are voting on (I have updated the wiki): Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain Tasting and the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting; Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a PDP on Domain Tasting and to request Constituency Impact Statements with respect to issues set forth in the Issues Report and in the Final Outcomes Report; Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the formation of a small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the Domain Tasting PDP (the "Design Team"), the principal volunteers to which had been members of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were well-informed of both the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and the GNSO Initial Report on Domain Tasting (collectively with the Issues Report, the "Reports on Domain Tasting"); Whereas, the Design Team has met and agreed on a Draft Motion attached to be set out for public comment and for Constituency Impact review; The GNSO Council RESOLVES: 1. The Draft Motion shall be posted for 21-day public comment on March 7, 2008. Each Constituency shall have 21 days from March 7, 2008 to update its Constituency Impact Statement with respect to this motion, if it so chooses. The deadline for amended Statements shall be March 28, 2008. 2. ICANN Staff please shall provide a summary of any public comments and/or amended Constituency Impact Statements to the Council, via submission of a Final Report with respect to this PDP, by April 4, 2008. 3. The Design Team shall then meet and confer with respect to the Final Report, in order to consider any public comments and/or amended Constituency Impact Statements and to consider any suggested amendments to the Draft Motion, and shall recommend a Final Motion to be considered by Council for vote in its scheduled meeting April 17, 2008. 4. It is the intention of the GNSO for the Staff to produce a Board Report on this PDP for consideration by the ICANN Board, in the hope that the Board may vote on any recommendations of the GNSO with respect to this PDP, at the scheduled ICANN meeting in Paris in June, 2008 <insert text of DNT DT motion> a. On 5 Mar 2008, at 10:14, Tim Ruiz wrote:
The Staff and Counsel may have stated the opinion that tasting was within scope, but that doesn't mean that every element of any policy proposal we come up is viable under current contracts. That's all we're saying. If the Council does send something to the Board it just seems reasonable that if there is a question about it actually being implementable that we first try to resolve that.