Council report required for the Board on the recently approved WHOIS recommendation
Hello Olof, As the Council approved the recent WHOIS recommendation in its meeting on 28 Nov 2005. See http://gnso.icann.org/issues/tf-final-rpt-25oct05.htm for Final Report. The next step is to finalise a "Council Report to the Board". See quote from the bylaws below. As discussed in the Council meeting today, it would be appropriate to prepare this report for consideration by the Board in its Board meeting in February 2006. Regards, Bruce 11. Council Report to the Board The Staff Manager will be present at the final meeting of the Council, and will have five (5) calendar days after the meeting to incorporate the views of the Council into a report to be submitted to the Board (the "Board Report"). The Board Report must contain at least the following: a. A clear statement of any Supermajority Vote recommendation of the Council; b. If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear statement of all positions held by Council members. Each statement should clearly indicate (i) the reasons underlying each position and (ii) the constituency(ies) that held the position; c. An analysis of how the issue would affect each constituency, including any financial impact on the constituency; d. An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary to implement the policy; e. The advice of any outside advisors relied upon, which should be accompanied by a detailed statement of the advisor's (i) qualifications and relevant experience; and (ii) potential conflicts of interest; f. The Final Report submitted to the Council; and g. A copy of the minutes of the Council deliberation on the policy issue, including the all opinions expressed during such deliberation, accompanied by a description of who expressed such opinions.
Hi Bruce, Thanks for the reminder - Maria and I have talked about it and she will produce the report, aiming for the February Board meeting. We have also considered whether we should launch an additional public comment period on it. In view of the Bylaws, Art 6.3.1, we don't see that as necessary in this case and we're keen to hear your view on it. Best regards Olof -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 6:31 AM To: olof nordling Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Council report required for the Board on the recently approved WHOIS recommendation Hello Olof, As the Council approved the recent WHOIS recommendation in its meeting on 28 Nov 2005. See http://gnso.icann.org/issues/tf-final-rpt-25oct05.htm for Final Report. The next step is to finalise a "Council Report to the Board". See quote from the bylaws below. As discussed in the Council meeting today, it would be appropriate to prepare this report for consideration by the Board in its Board meeting in February 2006. Regards, Bruce 11. Council Report to the Board The Staff Manager will be present at the final meeting of the Council, and will have five (5) calendar days after the meeting to incorporate the views of the Council into a report to be submitted to the Board (the "Board Report"). The Board Report must contain at least the following: a. A clear statement of any Supermajority Vote recommendation of the Council; b. If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear statement of all positions held by Council members. Each statement should clearly indicate (i) the reasons underlying each position and (ii) the constituency(ies) that held the position; c. An analysis of how the issue would affect each constituency, including any financial impact on the constituency; d. An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary to implement the policy; e. The advice of any outside advisors relied upon, which should be accompanied by a detailed statement of the advisor's (i) qualifications and relevant experience; and (ii) potential conflicts of interest; f. The Final Report submitted to the Council; and g. A copy of the minutes of the Council deliberation on the policy issue, including the all opinions expressed during such deliberation, accompanied by a description of who expressed such opinions.
Hi, I know this was addressed to Bruce, but I would like to comment that I think it is always better to have more public comment rather then less. so if the by-laws allow it, it seems best to have a comment period. the only proviso would be how it would affect the completion schedule. I.e. can a comment period be held and still have a decision in the pre Wellington time frame. a. On 22 dec 2005, at 05.21, Olof Nordling wrote:
Hi Bruce, Thanks for the reminder - Maria and I have talked about it and she will produce the report, aiming for the February Board meeting. We have also considered whether we should launch an additional public comment period on it. In view of the Bylaws, Art 6.3.1, we don't see that as necessary in this case and we're keen to hear your view on it. Best regards Olof
-----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 6:31 AM To: olof nordling Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Council report required for the Board on the recently approved WHOIS recommendation
Hello Olof,
As the Council approved the recent WHOIS recommendation in its meeting on 28 Nov 2005.
See http://gnso.icann.org/issues/tf-final-rpt-25oct05.htm for Final Report.
The next step is to finalise a "Council Report to the Board". See quote from the bylaws below.
As discussed in the Council meeting today, it would be appropriate to prepare this report for consideration by the Board in its Board meeting in February 2006.
Regards, Bruce
11. Council Report to the Board
The Staff Manager will be present at the final meeting of the Council, and will have five (5) calendar days after the meeting to incorporate the views of the Council into a report to be submitted to the Board (the "Board Report"). The Board Report must contain at least the following:
a. A clear statement of any Supermajority Vote recommendation of the Council;
b. If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear statement of all positions held by Council members. Each statement should clearly indicate (i) the reasons underlying each position and (ii) the constituency(ies) that held the position;
c. An analysis of how the issue would affect each constituency, including any financial impact on the constituency;
d. An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary to implement the policy;
e. The advice of any outside advisors relied upon, which should be accompanied by a detailed statement of the advisor's (i) qualifications and relevant experience; and (ii) potential conflicts of interest;
f. The Final Report submitted to the Council; and
g. A copy of the minutes of the Council deliberation on the policy issue, including the all opinions expressed during such deliberation, accompanied by a description of who expressed such opinions.
Hi, In this case I would think that the comment period serves as a guide to the board on whether they should endorse the recommendations and what sort of the recommendations they might want to make about future policy processes on the topic. I think that it is important that both the council get comment before making a recommendation and that the board get comment before making a decision. Also acts as a community check and balance on the work we do. a. On 22 dec 2005, at 10.29, Marilyn Cade wrote:
Sometimes I would agree, Avri.
But in this case, I am not clear on what this would serve. I think we have met the responsibility for public comment on this policy.
Unless you are thinking that this would offer another chance for more organized, coherent, and thoughtful statements that the Council would need to take into account?
How would that work, given the state of the policy process we are in now?
From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> To: GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] RE: Council report required for the Board on the recently approved WHOIS recommendation Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:16:32 -0500
Hi,
I know this was addressed to Bruce, but I would like to comment that I think it is always better to have more public comment rather then less. so if the by-laws allow it, it seems best to have a comment period.
the only proviso would be how it would affect the completion schedule. I.e. can a comment period be held and still have a decision in the pre Wellington time frame.
a.
On 22 dec 2005, at 05.21, Olof Nordling wrote:
Hi Bruce, Thanks for the reminder - Maria and I have talked about it and she will produce the report, aiming for the February Board meeting. We have also considered whether we should launch an additional public comment period on it. In view of the Bylaws, Art 6.3.1, we don't see that as necessary in this case and we're keen to hear your view on it. Best regards Olof
-----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 6:31 AM To: olof nordling Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Council report required for the Board on the recently approved WHOIS recommendation
Hello Olof,
As the Council approved the recent WHOIS recommendation in its meeting on 28 Nov 2005.
See http://gnso.icann.org/issues/tf-final-rpt-25oct05.htm for Final Report.
The next step is to finalise a "Council Report to the Board". See quote from the bylaws below.
As discussed in the Council meeting today, it would be appropriate to prepare this report for consideration by the Board in its Board meeting in February 2006.
Regards, Bruce
11. Council Report to the Board
The Staff Manager will be present at the final meeting of the Council, and will have five (5) calendar days after the meeting to incorporate the views of the Council into a report to be submitted to the Board (the "Board Report"). The Board Report must contain at least the following:
a. A clear statement of any Supermajority Vote recommendation of the Council;
b. If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear statement of all positions held by Council members. Each statement should clearly indicate (i) the reasons underlying each position and (ii) the constituency(ies) that held the position;
c. An analysis of how the issue would affect each constituency, including any financial impact on the constituency;
d. An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary to implement the policy;
e. The advice of any outside advisors relied upon, which should be accompanied by a detailed statement of the advisor's (i) qualifications and relevant experience; and (ii) potential conflicts of interest;
f. The Final Report submitted to the Council; and
g. A copy of the minutes of the Council deliberation on the policy issue, including the all opinions expressed during such deliberation, accompanied by a description of who expressed such opinions.
Avri, this recommendation has already been through various iterations of public comments at the taskforce and council level. What is presented to the board now is the final product of ICANNs policy body for gTLDs created through the ICANN policy process. As the board is not policy body itself it should not have a look at the recomendation in that respect but rather in terms of possible flaws or errors making the policy unworkable. Best, tom Am 22.12.2005 schrieb Avri Doria:
Hi,
In this case I would think that the comment period serves as a guide to the board on whether they should endorse the recommendations and what sort of the recommendations they might want to make about future policy processes on the topic.
I think that it is important that both the council get comment before making a recommendation and that the board get comment before making a decision. Also acts as a community check and balance on the work we do.
a.
On 22 dec 2005, at 10.29, Marilyn Cade wrote:
Sometimes I would agree, Avri.
But in this case, I am not clear on what this would serve. I think we have met the responsibility for public comment on this policy.
Unless you are thinking that this would offer another chance for more organized, coherent, and thoughtful statements that the Council would need to take into account?
How would that work, given the state of the policy process we are in now?
From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> To: GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] RE: Council report required for the Board on the recently approved WHOIS recommendation Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:16:32 -0500
Hi,
I know this was addressed to Bruce, but I would like to comment that I think it is always better to have more public comment rather then less. so if the by-laws allow it, it seems best to have a comment period.
the only proviso would be how it would affect the completion schedule. I.e. can a comment period be held and still have a decision in the pre Wellington time frame.
a.
On 22 dec 2005, at 05.21, Olof Nordling wrote:
Hi Bruce, Thanks for the reminder - Maria and I have talked about it and she will produce the report, aiming for the February Board meeting. We have also considered whether we should launch an additional public comment period on it. In view of the Bylaws, Art 6.3.1, we don't see that as necessary in this case and we're keen to hear your view on it. Best regards Olof
-----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 6:31 AM To: olof nordling Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Council report required for the Board on the recently approved WHOIS recommendation
Hello Olof,
As the Council approved the recent WHOIS recommendation in its meeting on 28 Nov 2005.
See http://gnso.icann.org/issues/tf-final-rpt-25oct05.htm for Final Report.
The next step is to finalise a "Council Report to the Board". See quote from the bylaws below.
As discussed in the Council meeting today, it would be appropriate to prepare this report for consideration by the Board in its Board meeting in February 2006.
Regards, Bruce
11. Council Report to the Board
The Staff Manager will be present at the final meeting of the Council, and will have five (5) calendar days after the meeting to incorporate the views of the Council into a report to be submitted to the Board (the "Board Report"). The Board Report must contain at least the following:
a. A clear statement of any Supermajority Vote recommendation of the Council;
b. If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear statement of all positions held by Council members. Each statement should clearly indicate (i) the reasons underlying each position and (ii) the constituency(ies) that held the position;
c. An analysis of how the issue would affect each constituency, including any financial impact on the constituency;
d. An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary to implement the policy;
e. The advice of any outside advisors relied upon, which should be accompanied by a detailed statement of the advisor's (i) qualifications and relevant experience; and (ii) potential conflicts of interest;
f. The Final Report submitted to the Council; and
g. A copy of the minutes of the Council deliberation on the policy issue, including the all opinions expressed during such deliberation, accompanied by a description of who expressed such opinions.
Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w
just to make my point clearer. I don´t see why yet another round of public comments would do any good, the arguments haven´t changed for the last three years and that is the "compromise" the taskforce came up with. tom Am 22.12.2005 schrieb Thomas Keller:
Avri,
this recommendation has already been through various iterations of public comments at the taskforce and council level. What is presented to the board now is the final product of ICANNs policy body for gTLDs created through the ICANN policy process. As the board is not policy body itself it should not have a look at the recomendation in that respect but rather in terms of possible flaws or errors making the policy unworkable.
Best,
tom
Am 22.12.2005 schrieb Avri Doria:
Hi,
In this case I would think that the comment period serves as a guide to the board on whether they should endorse the recommendations and what sort of the recommendations they might want to make about future policy processes on the topic.
I think that it is important that both the council get comment before making a recommendation and that the board get comment before making a decision. Also acts as a community check and balance on the work we do.
a.
On 22 dec 2005, at 10.29, Marilyn Cade wrote:
Sometimes I would agree, Avri.
But in this case, I am not clear on what this would serve. I think we have met the responsibility for public comment on this policy.
Unless you are thinking that this would offer another chance for more organized, coherent, and thoughtful statements that the Council would need to take into account?
How would that work, given the state of the policy process we are in now?
From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> To: GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] RE: Council report required for the Board on the recently approved WHOIS recommendation Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:16:32 -0500
Hi,
I know this was addressed to Bruce, but I would like to comment that I think it is always better to have more public comment rather then less. so if the by-laws allow it, it seems best to have a comment period.
the only proviso would be how it would affect the completion schedule. I.e. can a comment period be held and still have a decision in the pre Wellington time frame.
a.
On 22 dec 2005, at 05.21, Olof Nordling wrote:
Hi Bruce, Thanks for the reminder - Maria and I have talked about it and she will produce the report, aiming for the February Board meeting. We have also considered whether we should launch an additional public comment period on it. In view of the Bylaws, Art 6.3.1, we don't see that as necessary in this case and we're keen to hear your view on it. Best regards Olof
-----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 6:31 AM To: olof nordling Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Council report required for the Board on the recently approved WHOIS recommendation
Hello Olof,
As the Council approved the recent WHOIS recommendation in its meeting on 28 Nov 2005.
See http://gnso.icann.org/issues/tf-final-rpt-25oct05.htm for Final Report.
The next step is to finalise a "Council Report to the Board". See quote from the bylaws below.
As discussed in the Council meeting today, it would be appropriate to prepare this report for consideration by the Board in its Board meeting in February 2006.
Regards, Bruce
11. Council Report to the Board
The Staff Manager will be present at the final meeting of the Council, and will have five (5) calendar days after the meeting to incorporate the views of the Council into a report to be submitted to the Board (the "Board Report"). The Board Report must contain at least the following:
a. A clear statement of any Supermajority Vote recommendation of the Council;
b. If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear statement of all positions held by Council members. Each statement should clearly indicate (i) the reasons underlying each position and (ii) the constituency(ies) that held the position;
c. An analysis of how the issue would affect each constituency, including any financial impact on the constituency;
d. An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary to implement the policy;
e. The advice of any outside advisors relied upon, which should be accompanied by a detailed statement of the advisor's (i) qualifications and relevant experience; and (ii) potential conflicts of interest;
f. The Final Report submitted to the Council; and
g. A copy of the minutes of the Council deliberation on the policy issue, including the all opinions expressed during such deliberation, accompanied by a description of who expressed such opinions.
Gruss,
tom
(__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w
Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w
I agree with Tom. Lucy
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of ext Thomas Keller Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 9:11 AM To: Avri Doria Cc: Marilyn Cade; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] RE: Council report required for the Board on the recently approved WHOIS recommendation
just to make my point clearer. I don´t see why yet another round of public comments would do any good, the arguments haven´t changed for the last three years and that is the "compromise" the taskforce came up with.
tom
Avri,
this recommendation has already been through various iterations of public comments at the taskforce and council level. What is
to the board now is the final product of ICANNs policy body for gTLDs created through the ICANN policy process. As the board is not policy body itself it should not have a look at the recomendation in that respect but rather in terms of possible flaws or errors making the policy unworkable.
Best,
tom
Am 22.12.2005 schrieb Avri Doria:
Hi,
In this case I would think that the comment period serves as a guide to the board on whether they should endorse the recommendations and what sort of the recommendations they might want to make about future policy processes on the topic.
I think that it is important that both the council get comment before making a recommendation and that the board get comment before making a decision. Also acts as a community check and balance on the work we do.
a.
On 22 dec 2005, at 10.29, Marilyn Cade wrote:
Sometimes I would agree, Avri.
But in this case, I am not clear on what this would serve. I think we have met the responsibility for public comment on this policy.
Unless you are thinking that this would offer another chance for more organized, coherent, and thoughtful statements that the Council would need to take into account?
How would that work, given the state of the policy process we are in now?
From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> To: GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] RE: Council report required for the Board on the recently approved WHOIS recommendation Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:16:32 -0500
Hi,
I know this was addressed to Bruce, but I would like to comment that I think it is always better to have more public comment rather then less. so if the by-laws allow it, it seems best to have a comment period.
the only proviso would be how it would affect the completion schedule. I.e. can a comment period be held and still have a decision in the pre Wellington time frame.
a.
On 22 dec 2005, at 05.21, Olof Nordling wrote:
Hi Bruce, Thanks for the reminder - Maria and I have talked about it and she will produce the report, aiming for the February Board meeting. We have also considered whether we should launch an additional public comment period on it. In view of the Bylaws, Art 6.3.1, we don't see that as necessary in this case and we're keen to hear your view on it. Best regards Olof
-----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 6:31 AM To: olof nordling Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Council report required for the Board on the recently approved WHOIS recommendation
Hello Olof,
As the Council approved the recent WHOIS recommendation in its meeting on 28 Nov 2005.
See http://gnso.icann.org/issues/tf-final-rpt-25oct05.htm for Final Report.
The next step is to finalise a "Council Report to the Board". See quote from the bylaws below.
As discussed in the Council meeting today, it would be appropriate to prepare this report for consideration by
Am 22.12.2005 schrieb Thomas Keller: presented the Board
in its Board meeting in February 2006.
Regards, Bruce
11. Council Report to the Board
The Staff Manager will be present at the final meeting of the Council, and will have five (5) calendar days after the meeting to incorporate the views of the Council into a report to be submitted to the Board (the "Board Report"). The Board Report must contain at least the following:
a. A clear statement of any Supermajority Vote recommendation of the Council;
b. If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear statement of all positions held by Council members. Each statement should clearly indicate (i) the reasons underlying each position and (ii) the constituency(ies) that held the position;
c. An analysis of how the issue would affect each constituency, including any financial impact on the constituency;
d. An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary to implement the policy;
e. The advice of any outside advisors relied upon, which should be accompanied by a detailed statement of the advisor's (i) qualifications and relevant experience; and (ii) potential conflicts of interest;
f. The Final Report submitted to the Council; and
g. A copy of the minutes of the Council deliberation on the policy issue, including the all opinions expressed during such deliberation, accompanied by a description of who expressed such opinions.
Gruss,
tom
(__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w
Gruss,
tom
(__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w
Hi, I understand how much consultation has gone into coming up to the compromise. But has the compromise itself been commented on? In any case, I think that every stage of recommendation and decision should be subject to public comment. so as it moves from the council with its responsibility for recommending policy to the board with its responsibility for due diligence and for approving policy, i think there is a reasonable opportunity for public comment. a. On 22 dec 2005, at 11.10, Thomas Keller wrote:
just to make my point clearer. I don´t see why yet another round of public comments would do any good, the arguments haven´t changed for the last three years and that is the "compromise" the taskforce came up with.
tom
Am 22.12.2005 schrieb Thomas Keller:
Avri,
this recommendation has already been through various iterations of public comments at the taskforce and council level. What is presented to the board now is the final product of ICANNs policy body for gTLDs created through the ICANN policy process. As the board is not policy body itself it should not have a look at the recomendation in that respect but rather in terms of possible flaws or errors making the policy unworkable.
Best,
tom
Dear all, Some information which may help your deliberations on this issue: The Preliminary Task Force report - which described in detail the compromise the task force reached - was posted for public comments from 12 September to 2 October 2005. Seven comments were received. These were compiled in the Final Task Force Report which the Council voted on during the 28 November meeting. The Final Task Force Report has been posted on the ICANN website, and prominently featured on the GNSO home page, since 11 November, 2005. This issue was also included in Whois Task Force Chair, Jordyn Buchanan's presentations to the GNSO Public Forum in Mar del Plata and Luxembourg. The bylaws state that a public comment period is called for when a recommendation goes from Council to the Board if the proposal will have an impact on the overall operation of the DNS. The Board's role in this respect is not to weigh up the policy aspects but to ensure that the decision-making is not flawed and that the proposal will not have an adverse effect on the DNS. As this recommendation's main objective was to create an exception procedure to deal with a specific and to date unknown exception to compliance with a section of the bylaws, staff's judgement is that it does not meet the criteria that require a further public comment period. Staff will of course respect the Council's wishes on this if the Council decides that this judgement is in error. All the best, Maria -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 6:29 PM To: Thomas Keller Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] RE: Council report required for the Board on the recently approved WHOIS recommendation Hi, I understand how much consultation has gone into coming up to the compromise. But has the compromise itself been commented on? In any case, I think that every stage of recommendation and decision should be subject to public comment. so as it moves from the council with its responsibility for recommending policy to the board with its responsibility for due diligence and for approving policy, i think there is a reasonable opportunity for public comment. a. On 22 dec 2005, at 11.10, Thomas Keller wrote:
just to make my point clearer. I don´t see why yet another round of public comments would do any good, the arguments haven´t changed for the last three years and that is the "compromise" the taskforce came up with.
tom
Am 22.12.2005 schrieb Thomas Keller:
Avri,
this recommendation has already been through various iterations of public comments at the taskforce and council level. What is presented to the board now is the final product of ICANNs policy body for gTLDs created through the ICANN policy process. As the board is not policy body itself it should not have a look at the recomendation in that respect but rather in terms of possible flaws or errors making the policy unworkable.
Best,
tom
participants (7)
-
Avri Doria -
Bruce Tonkin -
Lucy.Nichols＠nokia.com -
Maria Farrell -
Marilyn Cade -
Olof Nordling -
Thomas Keller