Compromise motion on Verisign
Following Council feedback please see below and attached a proposed compromise motion on the settlement Philip Draft GNSO Council motion on the proposed Verisign settlement v2 Whereas the GNSO constituencies participated in a review of the proposed settlement and have detailed statements on issues of concern, Whereas the GNSO Council supports the principle of a settlement of litigation between ICANN and Verisign, Whereas the GNSO Council does not support all articles within this proposed settlement, Whereas the GNSO Council believes that there are broader questions raised in the proposed settlement that need to be first addressed by the GNSO. The GNSO Council resolves: That the ICANN Board should postpone adoption of the proposed settlement while the Council fully investigates the policy issues raised by the proposed changes.
My understanding is that the Board already pledged not to sign anything until 2006. Perhaps we want to put a date on the request. In other words, change the resolution clause to read: "That the ICANN Board should postpone adoption of the proposed settlement _until the next meeting in Wellington, New Zealand_, while the Council fully investigates the policy issues raised by the proposed changes _and reports to the Board on its findings_." Bret
Bret Fausett wrote:
My understanding is that the Board already pledged not to sign anything until 2006. Perhaps we want to put a date on the request. In other words, change the resolution clause to read: "That the ICANN Board should postpone adoption of the proposed settlement _until the next meeting in Wellington, New Zealand_, while the Council fully investigates the policy issues raised by the proposed changes _and reports to the Board on its findings_."
Bret
I heard the same "rumor" - but was there a Board meeting deciding this? Norbert
I think that Council needs to give some guidance on this issue. I think we made a very good step forward when the Board committed to consultant ion, and that consultation has begun. There are many consistencies in the statement n s of all the Constituencies and in the ALAC. And the need to undertake policy development seems a consistency, Council should tell the Board clearly of the consistencies that we see in the comments, I believe. In all constituencies yesterday, I am told, Board members stated the need for clear guidance. I also heard this from a few Board members. In the last public meeting in Luxembourg, we heard from one or two Board members , seated in the public forum, that they thought that the statements made from the constituencies from the floor in the public forum were "merely the statements of a few individuals". I think we have to take seriously how we can advance our ability to respond to the situations that face us when we walk into an ICANN meeting and decisions are going to be made, or not made, by the board on items of urgent concern or with significant policy implications. We have to be able to develop and take a resolution approach while at an ICANN meeting, and that is a topic we need to grapple with administratively going forward. For this meeting, the BC proposed a resolution that all constituencies had a full day and had constituency meetings scheduled when they could discuss the issue and approach. Philip has suggested some modifications to the resolution to simplify it. So, two points: We should provide a summary of the consistencies from our meeting. Secondly, we should present a resolution supporting a delay, and noting our policy work which has to be completed to advise the .com assignment process. I think it is fair for the Board to expect the gNSO policy council to be able to provide a resolution that has majority support. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Klein Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 12:22 PM To: Bret Fausett Cc: council@icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Compromise motion on Verisign Bret Fausett wrote:
My understanding is that the Board already pledged not to sign anything until 2006. Perhaps we want to put a date on the request. In other words, change the resolution clause to read: "That the ICANN Board should postpone adoption of the proposed settlement _until the next meeting in Wellington, New Zealand_, while the Council fully investigates the policy issues raised by the proposed changes _and reports to the Board on its findings_."
Bret
I heard the same "rumor" - but was there a Board meeting deciding this? Norbert
participants (4)
-
Bret Fausett -
Marilyn Cade -
Norbert Klein -
philip.sheppard＠aim.be