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.
Avri - I'd like to formally object to this motion as being out of order on the grounds that it is fundamentally inconsistent with the formal Policy Development Process which stipulates that the GNSO Council must file a Board Report pursuant to the receipt of a Final Report. We have allowed for tremendous flexibility in pursuing this work thus far - timelines have been stretched to the point of breaking, work processes have been bent to include the input of a very broad range of stakeholders and so on. Council must now close off this chapter in a manner consistent with the ICANN bylaws - which means voting on the reports and filing a Council Report to the Board. If further study is desirable, the work should be pursued outside of the PDP. I would not object to the study component of this motion being pursued as a separate agenda item, but it cannot interfere with our bylaw requirements to vote on this issue and move forward. Rosette, Kristina wrote:
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.
-- Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc. http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
Hi, As I understand the motion we took on an end process, we allowed for any motion a council member wanted to make with the stipulation that we would vote on all of them before passing the final report on to the Board with the results of all motions included. If this motion succeeds in getting a supermajority, I see at least two things happening: - the final report goes to the board indicating the supermajority result for no decision at this time. - the GSNO council needs to figure out the manner in which it will process the information gained in the studies. If this motion does not achieve supermajority, it is still attached to the final report reporting its stauts and the board will know that this is the considered opinion of a set of council members. The motions that are presented by the end of today are to be included with the draft final report and are to be discussed by the constituencies and the community so that the council members have guidance in our vote in LA. I see no basis for refusing the motion given the end process we have adopted. thanks a. On 11 sep 2007, at 14.52, Ross Rader wrote:
Avri -
I'd like to formally object to this motion as being out of order on the grounds that it is fundamentally inconsistent with the formal Policy Development Process which stipulates that the GNSO Council must file a Board Report pursuant to the receipt of a Final Report.
We have allowed for tremendous flexibility in pursuing this work thus far - timelines have been stretched to the point of breaking, work processes have been bent to include the input of a very broad range of stakeholders and so on. Council must now close off this chapter in a manner consistent with the ICANN bylaws - which means voting on the reports and filing a Council Report to the Board.
If further study is desirable, the work should be pursued outside of the PDP. I would not object to the study component of this motion being pursued as a separate agenda item, but it cannot interfere with our bylaw requirements to vote on this issue and move forward.
Rosette, Kristina wrote:
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.
-- Regards,
Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc.
http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
Avri Doria wrote:
I see no basis for refusing the motion given the end process we have adopted.
I am not sure that I understand this. I am certain that the bylaws are very clear on what our next steps should be, despite the twisted path we have taken to get here. We cannot simply take a report and sit on it while we decide to gather further information. The proposition is fundamentally inconsistent with the path that the bylaws permit. The Council does have considerable leeway in terms of what our response to the vote is. For instance, if the report does not have the support of the Council, it is perfectly reasonable for us to consider further study of the issue in an attempt to find a path forward. It is equally reasonable for us to consider a request of the board to sunset Whois provisions in the current contract in the event that we cannot find a path forward. But, we do not have this same leeway in terms of what our action in response to the receipt of this report is. We must vote on it and send the results of that vote to the Board. This is the basis upon which I'm requesting that this motion, as worded, be ruled out of order. -- Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc. http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
Hi, As you are calling for a decision based on the by-laws, I will consult with ICANN's legal counsel on this issue. In the meantime, I will ask that the motion be include in the draft Final Report as one of the options, and should it turn out to be out of order, we can deal with that before it is time for a vote in LA. Thanks a. On 11 sep 2007, at 15.21, Ross Rader wrote:
Avri Doria wrote:
I see no basis for refusing the motion given the end process we have adopted.
I am not sure that I understand this. I am certain that the bylaws are very clear on what our next steps should be, despite the twisted path we have taken to get here. We cannot simply take a report and sit on it while we decide to gather further information. The proposition is fundamentally inconsistent with the path that the bylaws permit.
The Council does have considerable leeway in terms of what our response to the vote is. For instance, if the report does not have the support of the Council, it is perfectly reasonable for us to consider further study of the issue in an attempt to find a path forward. It is equally reasonable for us to consider a request of the board to sunset Whois provisions in the current contract in the event that we cannot find a path forward. But, we do not have this same leeway in terms of what our action in response to the receipt of this report is. We must vote on it and send the results of that vote to the Board.
This is the basis upon which I'm requesting that this motion, as worded, be ruled out of order.
-- Regards,
Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc.
http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
As you are calling for a decision based on the by-laws, I will consult with ICANN's legal counsel on this issue.
In the meantime, I will ask that the motion be include in the draft Final Report as one of the options, and should it turn out to be out of order, we can deal with that before it is time for a vote in LA.
This sounds perfectly reasonable. Thank you. -- Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc. http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
Ross, are you arguing that it is appropriate to vote on your motion that recommends an option (removing contract provisions) not considered by the TF or WG, yet it is not appropriate to vote on a motion that recommends further factfinding as suggested by the WG and the GAC? I object to your motion on the grounds that such an option was not discussed by the TF or WG, is not mentioned in either report, and therefore has not been presented as an option for consideration by Council at this time. At minimum Council needs guidance as to likely impacts from implementation of such an option, before we reasonably can consider it. Mike Rodenbaugh -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 12:21 PM To: Avri Doria Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Motion for draft Final Report on Whois and Voting in LA Avri Doria wrote:
I see no basis for refusing the motion given the end process we have adopted.
I am not sure that I understand this. I am certain that the bylaws are very clear on what our next steps should be, despite the twisted path we have taken to get here. We cannot simply take a report and sit on it while we decide to gather further information. The proposition is fundamentally inconsistent with the path that the bylaws permit. The Council does have considerable leeway in terms of what our response to the vote is. For instance, if the report does not have the support of the Council, it is perfectly reasonable for us to consider further study of the issue in an attempt to find a path forward. It is equally reasonable for us to consider a request of the board to sunset Whois provisions in the current contract in the event that we cannot find a path forward. But, we do not have this same leeway in terms of what our action in response to the receipt of this report is. We must vote on it and send the results of that vote to the Board. This is the basis upon which I'm requesting that this motion, as worded, be ruled out of order. -- Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc. http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
Ross, are you arguing that it is appropriate to vote on your motion that recommends an option (removing contract provisions) not considered by the TF or WG, yet it is not appropriate to vote on a motion that recommends further factfinding as suggested by the WG and the GAC?
I apologize if I have confused you Mike. Hopefully I can clarify. I've objected to the motion put forward by the BC on the basis that it diverts us from the process specified in the PDP. The motion I've put forward makes no such error and sets forth a plan of action in response to the likely condition that the Council does not agree on a path forward. If there is a path forward, I will withdraw the motion. If there is no path forward, I would like to vote on it.
I object to your motion on the grounds that such an option was not discussed by the TF or WG, is not mentioned in either report, and therefore has not been presented as an option for consideration by Council at this time. At minimum Council needs guidance as to likely impacts from implementation of such an option, before we reasonably can consider it.
I'm sure Avri will rule on this in due time but I will note that there is no procedural or bylaws requirement for the Council to refer to the PDP in the event that they wish to communicate a non-binding advisory to the Board. As such, I'm not really sure how this objection is itself in order. To the extent that anyone disagrees with the proposal I've made, I would strongly encourage you to vote against it, or at least propose an amendment that you might consider voting for.
Mike Rodenbaugh
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 12:21 PM To: Avri Doria Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Motion for draft Final Report on Whois and Voting in LA
Avri Doria wrote:
I see no basis for refusing the motion given the end process we have adopted.
I am not sure that I understand this. I am certain that the bylaws are very clear on what our next steps should be, despite the twisted path we
have taken to get here. We cannot simply take a report and sit on it while we decide to gather further information. The proposition is fundamentally inconsistent with the path that the bylaws permit.
The Council does have considerable leeway in terms of what our response to the vote is. For instance, if the report does not have the support of
the Council, it is perfectly reasonable for us to consider further study
of the issue in an attempt to find a path forward. It is equally reasonable for us to consider a request of the board to sunset Whois provisions in the current contract in the event that we cannot find a path forward. But, we do not have this same leeway in terms of what our action in response to the receipt of this report is. We must vote on it and send the results of that vote to the Board.
This is the basis upon which I'm requesting that this motion, as worded,
be ruled out of order.
-- Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc. http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
I second the IPC motion. Mike Rodenbaugh ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 11:37 AM 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.
participants (4)
-
Avri Doria -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Rosette, Kristina -
Ross Rader