I second the motion. Cyril ALBAN TAY MAHTANI & DE SILVA < This message (including attachments) contains privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not to take any action in reliance on it nor to disseminate, distribute, publish or copy this message. If you have received this message in error, please accept our apologies, delete all copies from your system and notify us at mail@atmdlaw.com.sg. Unless it relates to the official business of ATMD, any opinions or matters expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rosette, Kristina" [krosette@cov.com] Sent: 09/11/2007 02:36 PM AST To: <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Proposed Motion for draft Final Report on Whois and Voting in LA All, Set forth below is a proposed motion for inclusion in the draft Final Report and, if seconded, to be voted upon during the LA meeting. Kristina -*- WHEREAS: 1. The GNSO Council hereby accepts the Working Group report and acknowledges the tremendous effort by Working Group participants and ICANN staff. 2. The GNSO Council does not consider the Working Group report as an adequate basis for any implementation of the Operational Point of Contact (OPOC) proposal, due to the inability to reach agreement on a number of key issues identified in the charter of the Working Group. 3. The GNSO Council notes that no comprehensive, objective study has yet been made of key factual issues regarding the Whois system, and that future ICANN policymaking could greatly benefit from the results of such a study. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The GNSO Council thanks all of the volunteers, consultants, staff and others who have participated in the GNSO's examination of Whois policy over the last four years. 2. Building on the work done in response to paragraph (c) of the GNSO Council Resolution #3 of September 6, 2007, the Council requests that ICANN staff take the necessary steps to proceed with a comprehensive, objective study on the issues identified by the Whois Working Group, by the Governmental Advisory Committee in its statement of principles on Whois, and by the Council. These issues include the characteristics of gTLD registrants, the uses and abuses of Whois data, and a review and analysis of the different proxy services available today. Specifically, the Council directs the staff to present for its review a draft Request for Proposals for such a study, including a proposed budget and timeline, and a methodology for outreach to knowledgeable parties, within 90 days from the date of adoption of this resolution. 3. The GNSO Council will take the results of this study, once completed, into account in deciding on the next steps in Whois policy development.