Proposed Motion concerning Council communication to ICANN BoD regarding lack of Whois consensus
In the event that there is not a majority vote of Council in favor of the resolution put forward by Avri pursuant to the requirements of the policy development process and therefore resulting in no policy recommendation to the ICANN Board, I would like to table the following resolution. Should Avri's motion pass with the majority support of Council, I will withdraw this motion at the appropriate time and it will not require the consideration of the Council. In other words, this is a conditional motion that will require a second, but may be withdrawn if it is established that there is actually some level of agreement concerning the recommendations of the Task Force. I would also note that the effect of this motion will be to require council to make a communication to the board of directors on the subject matter at hand. Communications from the Council to the Board are considered advisory and non-binding in nature, but may be considered as guidance concerning specific matters such as this. Text of Motion: --- Whereas; (i) The GNSO Council has considered the reports of the Whois Working Group and Whois Task Force, and; (ii) That the GNSO Council vote on resolution [XXXXX] failed to produce supermajority or majority support for the recommendations of the report of the Task Force, and; (iii) The GNSO Council considers that the results of this vote signifies the continued lack of consensus on the key issues and possible solutions to those issues, both within the Council, the GNSO and between key stakeholder groups, and; (iv) The GNSO Council recognizes that there is no standing consensus policy concerning the management of the Whois service and data provided to the public through that service by ICANN's contracted commercial operators, the registries and registrars. save and except the Whois Data Reminder Policy and the Whois Marketing Restriction Policy, and; (v) That significant policy must have the support of the Internet and DNS community and without that support, those policies cannot be reasonably implemented or enforced. Therefore be it resolved; (i) That, with regret, the GNSO Council advises the ICANN staff and Board of Directors of the lack of general consensus on the key issues and solutions pertaining to gTLD Whois, and; (ii) That due to this lack of consensus the GNSO Council recommends that the Board consider "sunsetting" the existing current contractual requirements concerning Whois for registries, registrars and registrants that are not supported by consensus policy by removing these unsupported provisions from the current operating agreements between ICANN and its contracted parties, and; (iii) That these provisions be sunset no later than the end of the 2008 ICANN Annual General Meeting and; (iv) That such provisions will remain sunset until such time that consensus policy in this area has been developed to replace the sunset provisions, at which point they will be eliminated or modified. -- Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc. http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
While we are on the subject of procedures for Council... a. It is bizarre to lay down now motions that reference a hypothetical outcome of a future GNSO vote. Please Avri check with legal services on the good sense and by-law compatibility of this. b. A motion that proposes an outcome to a PDP that is 100% unconnected with the PDP terms of reference and any discussion (to wit Ross's motion) must be out of order. At best it relates by title only to the same issue. Avri, please check this out with legal services also. A Councillor may propose any nonsense they want at any time: Council is not obliged to indulge it. As a long standing member, I would prefer to see us act with common sense, propriety and rationality. Philip
Philip Sheppard wrote:
While we are on the subject of procedures for Council...
a. It is bizarre to lay down now motions that reference a hypothetical outcome of a future GNSO vote. Please Avri check with legal services on the good sense and by-law compatibility of this.
Save yourself the trouble Avri, the bylaw cover neither the "bizarre" nor "good sense". C'mon Philip, surely you can do better. The *only* reason this motion has been tabled at this time is to provide my fellow councillors with the opportunity to review a motion before I table it at a council meeting. This is the process that we all agreed to and I'm simply following it.
b. A motion that proposes an outcome to a PDP that is 100% unconnected with the PDP terms of reference and any discussion (to wit Ross's motion) must be out of order. At best it relates by title only to the same issue. Avri, please check this out with legal services also.
The motion does not propose any outcome to the PDP. It is a proposal regarding how we will react to a possible outcome and make a communication to the board describing that possible outcome.
A Councillor may propose any nonsense they want at any time: Council is not obliged to indulge it. As a long standing member, I would prefer to see us act with common sense, propriety and rationality.
Why start now Philip? Again with your rhetoric. If you are looking to act with common sense, you might want to start by rethinking these sorts of statements. Objecting to a motion on emotional terms? Really. -ross
Hi, Although this motion is not intended to effect change in the Whois PDP process, I understand that it might be withdrawn should the council vote to bring the PDP to closure. I think its content, which is an advisory to the board, deserves consideration and I don't really see any basis for a systematic requirement of public and community discussions as a condition before any communication be issued by the council to the board. I therefore second this resolution proposal. Thanks, Mawaki --- Ross Rader <ross@tucows.com> wrote:
In the event that there is not a majority vote of Council in favor of the resolution put forward by Avri pursuant to the requirements of the policy development process and therefore resulting in no policy recommendation to the ICANN Board, I would like to table the following resolution. Should Avri's motion pass with the majority support of Council, I will withdraw this motion at the appropriate time and it will not require the consideration of the Council.
In other words, this is a conditional motion that will require a second, but may be withdrawn if it is established that there is actually some level of agreement concerning the recommendations of the Task Force.
I would also note that the effect of this motion will be to require council to make a communication to the board of directors on the subject matter at hand. Communications from the Council to the Board are considered advisory and non-binding in nature, but may be considered as guidance concerning specific matters such as this.
Text of Motion: ---
Whereas;
(i) The GNSO Council has considered the reports of the Whois Working Group and Whois Task Force, and; (ii) That the GNSO Council vote on resolution [XXXXX] failed to produce supermajority or majority support for the recommendations of the report of the Task Force, and; (iii) The GNSO Council considers that the results of this vote signifies the continued lack of consensus on the key issues and possible solutions to those issues, both within the Council, the GNSO and between key stakeholder groups, and; (iv) The GNSO Council recognizes that there is no standing consensus policy concerning the management of the Whois service and data provided to the public through that service by ICANN's contracted commercial operators, the registries and registrars. save and except the Whois Data Reminder Policy and the Whois Marketing Restriction Policy, and; (v) That significant policy must have the support of the Internet and DNS community and without that support, those policies cannot be reasonably implemented or enforced.
Therefore be it resolved;
(i) That, with regret, the GNSO Council advises the ICANN staff and Board of Directors of the lack of general consensus on the key issues and solutions pertaining to gTLD Whois, and; (ii) That due to this lack of consensus the GNSO Council recommends that the Board consider "sunsetting" the existing current contractual requirements concerning Whois for registries, registrars and registrants that are not supported by consensus policy by removing these unsupported provisions from the current operating agreements between ICANN and its contracted parties, and; (iii) That these provisions be sunset no later than the end of the 2008 ICANN Annual General Meeting and; (iv) That such provisions will remain sunset until such time that consensus policy in this area has been developed to replace the sunset provisions, at which point they will be eliminated or modified.
-- Regards,
Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc.
http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
participants (4)
-
Avri Doria -
Mawaki Chango -
Philip Sheppard -
Ross Rader