RE: [council] Draft motions on Registration Abuse Policy
The GNSO Council members will consult with their constituencies in preparation for a vote on a PDP and other possible motions at the Council meeting on 8 January.
Thank you Avri. The problem with motions like the ones flying around here in the last day and a half (less than 7 days before our meeting) is the Council is not like the Board (no matter what some like to claim). The Councilors represent their constituents and need time to consult with them on various issues and decisions before voting. Even seven days is really cutting it short. Hopefully the PPSC PDP Team will take this into account and require - without exception - a reasonable notice period for motions that allows for constituency consultation. Once Councilors have a good handle on the views of their constituents regarding a particular motion, they will be in a much better position to *negotiate* necessary amendments that address the needs/concerms of their constituents and can vote in a more informed manner. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Draft motions on Registration Abuse Policy From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Date: Fri, December 12, 2008 10:55 am To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Hi, In response to an action item from the last meeting, I have submitted 3 possible motions in response to the Issues Report on Registration Abuse. Some of the details still need to be filled out, but I wanted to get these to the council as soon as possible. They are on the wiki. They are conceived of as a sequence: 1 We set up a team to create a WG charter to deal with the open issues as recommended in the Issues Report 2. we vote on a PDP as required by the bylaws 3. if we do not approve the PDP at this time, we resolve to vote again on the PDP once the work has been completed by the WG. thanks a. ------- Motions on Registration Abuse Policy (to be completed) 1. WG motion Made By: Avri Doria Seconded: Whereas: The Issues Report on GNSO Issues Report on Registration Abuse Policies indicated that further review, evaluation and study be done before a PDP is initiated, Resolved: That a drafting team be formed to create a proposed charter for a working group to investigate the open issues documented in the issues report on Registrations Abuse Policy. Specifically: 9.1 Review and Evaluate Findings A first step would be for the GNSO Council to review and evaluate the findings, taking into account that this report provides an overview of registration abuse provisions, but does not analyse how these provisions are implemented in practice and whether they are deemed effective in addressing registration abuse. 9.2 Identify specific policy issues Following the review and evaluation of the findings, the GNSO Council would need to determine whether there are specific policy issues regarding registration abuse. As part of this determination it would be helpful to define the specific type(s) of abuse of concern, especially distinguishing between registration abuse and other types of abuse if relevant. 9.3 Need for further research As part of the previous two steps, ICANN Staff would recommend that the GNSO Council determines where further research may be needed – e.g. is lack of uniformity a substantial problem, how effective are current registration abuse provisions in addressing abuse in practice, is an initial review or analysis of the UDRP required? The WG charter should be ready for review by the council on or before 15 January 2009 and will be voted on at the council meeting of 29 January 2009. 2. PDP motion Made By: Avri Doria Seconded: Whereas: An Issues Report on GNSO Issues Report on Registration Abuse Policies has been produced and the by-laws (insert section #) require a vote on the formation of a Policy Development Process, Resolved: That a PDP on Registration Abuse Policy be initiated. 3. Contingent Motion Made By: Avri Doria Seconded: Whereas: The motion to initiate a PDP at this time failed and a Working group has been formed to further investigate the issue presented in the Issues report Resolved: The GNSO Council will reconsider initiating a PDP on Registration Abuse Policy once the Working has produced its report and it has been subject to constituency and public review. Motions on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Whereas: An Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery has been produced and introduced to the GNSO Council. Resolve: The GNSO Council members will consult with their constituencies in preparation for a vote on a PDP and other possible motions at the Council meeting on 8 January.
Hi, One of the other practices we have had, this is mostly for the new people have joined the council recently, is the practice of delaying a vote by one meeting if a constituency said it needed more time. I try not to delay things unnecessarily, but I know that the schedules of constituency meetings do not always mesh well with the schedule of Council meetings, So even 3 weeks may not be enough, though 6 will be in most cases. This is even more an issue when holidays are involved in the intervening time. In general the guideline I try to follow is to schedule a vote on a PDP at the meeting after the issues report has been introduced to the council with an overview by the staff. This is generally at least 4 weeks after the report has been released. Everyone knows that we have been 'ignoring' the strict time considerations in the PDP rules. I have, however, been trying to follow a fairly consistent set of guidelines though these have evolved over time. I should probably write these up for the PPSC so the issues they bring out, if not the guidelines themselves, can be considered as part of the discussion. In terms of the motions submitted less then 7 days in advance of the meeting, I apologize for my part in being a day late with the motions for Registration Abuse Policy. If the constituencies are not ready to vote at this meeting because of that delay I will understand, though the bylaws required vote on whether we do a PDP or not is a rather automatic motion that can be expected anytime 15 days after an issues report is released (not that we ever vote that soon). In terms of the motion for establishing a Drafting Team to work on a solution, that is often something we do without a long lead wen we find a subject that needs some focused work before the Council considers an issue. We certainly should make sure your concern for adequate constituency time to consider issues is taken into account by the PPSC. What I think we need to do is find the right balance between sufficient time and timeliness - which is not a necessarily trivial issue. thanks a. On 12 Dec 2008, at 12:26, Tim Ruiz wrote:
The GNSO Council members will consult with their constituencies in preparation for a vote on a PDP and other possible motions at the Council meeting on 8 January.
Thank you Avri. The problem with motions like the ones flying around here in the last day and a half (less than 7 days before our meeting) is the Council is not like the Board (no matter what some like to claim). The Councilors represent their constituents and need time to consult with them on various issues and decisions before voting. Even seven days is really cutting it short.
Hopefully the PPSC PDP Team will take this into account and require - without exception - a reasonable notice period for motions that allows for constituency consultation. Once Councilors have a good handle on the views of their constituents regarding a particular motion, they will be in a much better position to *negotiate* necessary amendments that address the needs/concerms of their constituents and can vote in a more informed manner.
Tim
participants (2)
-
Avri Doria -
Tim Ruiz