Thanks Yoav. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Le 4 avr. 2012 à 15:57, Yoav Keren a écrit :

Dear all,

I second Stephane's motion to administratively allow the process to move forward.

Best regards,

Yoav

Yoav Keren CEO Domain The Net Technologies Ltd. 81 Sokolov st. Tel: +972-3-7600500 Ramat Hasharon Fax: +972-3-7600505 Israel 47238 <image001.jpg>

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of St?phane Van Gelder Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 4:22 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org GNSO Subject: [council] Motion to delay thick WHOIS PDP

All,

You will remember that in CR the Council expressed a desire to delay the thick whois PDP.

Since then, the Council leadership and Staff have discussed this at length.

First, it has been deemed necessary to have a formal motion to do this. Due to the deadline for motions being today, I have asked that a motion to that effect be prepared and I am submitting this today. I am doing this as Chair, from an administrative point of view, to help see this process moved forward.

Second, we've had extensive discussions on what voting threshold should be used for this motion. In the end, we have ascertained that as there is no specific reference to a PDP suspension process in the bylaws, the default threshold should be used (see bylaws section 3.9: http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X-3.9).

Motion attached.

Thanks,

************************************************************************************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. ************************************************************************************

************************************************************************************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. ************************************************************************************

Jonathan, I agree that the PDP process and the contractual negotiation processes are essentially distinct and separate processes, but that does not preclude a particular outcome as a result of either. For example, domain tasting was essentially eliminated in .org, .info and .biz through RSTEP requests, which is essentially a mutually agreed upon contract change. A PDP resulted in a requirement for .com and .net (and others) to implement a change very similar to that which had been suggested in the Afilias and Neustar RSTEPS. So although quite different processes, the end result can be virtually identical (for any given registry). On perhaps a more substantive issue, the suggested amendment changes the motion from one that delays the process for a relatively finite defined time, to one that could go on forever. Alan At 11/04/2012 11:32 AM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:

Dear Stéphane & fellow councillors,

We have today discussed this motion during the course of the Registries SG meeting.

A concern was expressed and discussed in some detail about the reason for delay and directly linking a PDP process (on Thick WHOIS) with contractual negotiations (on .com). The PDP process and the contractual negotiation processes are essentially distinct and separate processes.

Therefore, I’d like to propose a friendly amendment to modify the motion in order to deal with this concern.

I have attached suggested re-wording of the motion to accommodate this concern.

Best wishes,

Jonathan

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: 04 April 2012 14:22 To: council@gnso.icann.org GNSO Subject: [council] Motion to delay thick WHOIS PDP

All,

You will remember that in CR the Council expressed a desire to delay the thick whois PDP.

Since then, the Council leadership and Staff have discussed this at length.

First, it has been deemed necessary to have a formal motion to do this. Due to the deadline for motions being today, I have asked that a motion to that effect be prepared and I am submitting this today. I am doing this as Chair, from an administrative point of view, to help see this process moved forward.

Second, we've had extensive discussions on what voting threshold should be used for this motion. In the end, we have ascertained that as there is no specific reference to a PDP suspension process in the bylaws, the default threshold should be used (see bylaws section 3.9: <http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X-3.9>http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X-3.9).

Motion attached.

Thanks,

Thanks Liz and all for moving this along. Liz, on the Staff resource issue, let me ask you the question outright: does Staff feel it has the bandwidth to take on this extra work should the Council decide to do so? The reason I am asking is that in past months, you have been very clear about the fact that Staff resources are stretched so thin that if the Council opted to start new work, it may need to consider dropping something else on its pending project list to accommodate the new requirement. As you know, I think you have been absolutely right to make this point and to help the Council understand what staff resources it can expect to call on. So I have to admit to being slightly confused at your apparent hesitation to cite the Staff resource issue in this motion, as Jonathan suggests doing. Although you are of course absolutely right: as far as I know, Staff has not been asked about their ability to take up this specific task and staff has been nothing short of stellar in their willingness to step up and take on any work that the Council has thrown at it up to known. Thanks. Stéphane Le 11 avr. 2012 à 18:48, Liz Gasster a écrit :

Dear Jonathan and all,

I would respectfully like to make two friendly suggestions to this motion (I’ve redlined in the attached):

1. To delete reference to ICANN staff resources. Staff has not been asked about our specific resources available to do this PDP (we are constrained overall but we have consistently stepped up to new work, if sometimes making modified arrangements to address workload). So I am not comfortable with the language making this a staff workload issue. I understand the issue of GNSO community resources, so that language is retained in my suggested edit. 2. To add a “date certain” which still would need to be inserted. The end time for a delay needs to be specifically defined, even if adjusted later on.

I’m happy to explain these suggestions further. Thanks so much for considering.

Best regards, Liz

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 8:33 AM To: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Motion to delay thick WHOIS PDP

Dear Stéphane & fellow councillors,

We have today discussed this motion during the course of the Registries SG meeting.

A concern was expressed and discussed in some detail about the reason for delay and directly linking a PDP process (on Thick WHOIS) with contractual negotiations (on .com). The PDP process and the contractual negotiation processes are essentially distinct and separate processes.

Therefore, I’d like to propose a friendly amendment to modify the motion in order to deal with this concern.

I have attached suggested re-wording of the motion to accommodate this concern.

Best wishes,

Jonathan

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: 04 April 2012 14:22 To: council@gnso.icann.org GNSO Subject: [council] Motion to delay thick WHOIS PDP

All,

You will remember that in CR the Council expressed a desire to delay the thick whois PDP.

Since then, the Council leadership and Staff have discussed this at length.

First, it has been deemed necessary to have a formal motion to do this. Due to the deadline for motions being today, I have asked that a motion to that effect be prepared and I am submitting this today. I am doing this as Chair, from an administrative point of view, to help see this process moved forward.

Second, we've had extensive discussions on what voting threshold should be used for this motion. In the end, we have ascertained that as there is no specific reference to a PDP suspension process in the bylaws, the default threshold should be used (see bylaws section 3.9: http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X-3.9).

Motion attached.

Thanks,

<Motion to delay the 'thick' Whois PDP - 30 March 2012 LizG.doc>

Hi, It seems clear that there are two key themes here: 1. The first is the resource issue which encompasses GNSO resources in general be they staff or broader community. Recognising this and the comments from staff that resources may become available, it seems that we do need to consider removing specific reference to staff resources in the motion and keep the reference to resources more generally. 2. The second is the timing and a date certain. In this case there is an issue of principal (not formally linking contract negotiations and policy development) and also initiating an interminable delay or at least a delay with no end point. However, this principal or these principals shouldn’t affect our common sense view of this. The latter may well mean that we agree a date certain which happens to occur at or near to the date we had in the original motion such that the work (if indeed it remains necessary) takes account of all relevant information, including any that may come out of contractual negotiations. I trust this is a helpful nudge forwards and broadly consistent with other postings on this subject. Best wishes, Jonathan From: Liz Gasster [mailto:liz.gasster@icann.org] Sent: 11 April 2012 22:26 To: Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: Jonathan Robinson; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Motion to delay thick WHOIS PDP Hi Stéphane and all, I really appreciate the concerns about staff workload, which continue to be significant. In this case, Marika has just completed the implementation of the PDP revision and the PEDNR PDP, and has almost completed the IRTP part B PDP, so if the Council elected to proceed, her work load is freeing up a bit, and she would be in a position to support this WG. Steve Sheng would also be available to assist with any technical matters. This assumes that there is sufficient GNSO community bandwidth to participate in the WG, it is much harder for staff to support a group when community participation is spotty. Best, Liz From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:Stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 1:09 PM To: Liz Gasster Cc: Jonathan Robinson; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Motion to delay thick WHOIS PDP Thanks Liz and all for moving this along. Liz, on the Staff resource issue, let me ask you the question outright: does Staff feel it has the bandwidth to take on this extra work should the Council decide to do so? The reason I am asking is that in past months, you have been very clear about the fact that Staff resources are stretched so thin that if the Council opted to start new work, it may need to consider dropping something else on its pending project list to accommodate the new requirement. As you know, I think you have been absolutely right to make this point and to help the Council understand what staff resources it can expect to call on. So I have to admit to being slightly confused at your apparent hesitation to cite the Staff resource issue in this motion, as Jonathan suggests doing. Although you are of course absolutely right: as far as I know, Staff has not been asked about their ability to take up this specific task and staff has been nothing short of stellar in their willingness to step up and take on any work that the Council has thrown at it up to known. Thanks. Stéphane Le 11 avr. 2012 à 18:48, Liz Gasster a écrit : Dear Jonathan and all, I would respectfully like to make two friendly suggestions to this motion (I’ve redlined in the attached): 1. To delete reference to ICANN staff resources. Staff has not been asked about our specific resources available to do this PDP (we are constrained overall but we have consistently stepped up to new work, if sometimes making modified arrangements to address workload). So I am not comfortable with the language making this a staff workload issue. I understand the issue of GNSO community resources, so that language is retained in my suggested edit. 2. To add a “date certain” which still would need to be inserted. The end time for a delay needs to be specifically defined, even if adjusted later on. I’m happy to explain these suggestions further. Thanks so much for considering. Best regards, Liz From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 8:33 AM To: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Motion to delay thick WHOIS PDP Dear Stéphane & fellow councillors, We have today discussed this motion during the course of the Registries SG meeting. A concern was expressed and discussed in some detail about the reason for delay and directly linking a PDP process (on Thick WHOIS) with contractual negotiations (on .com). The PDP process and the contractual negotiation processes are essentially distinct and separate processes. Therefore, I’d like to propose a friendly amendment to modify the motion in order to deal with this concern. I have attached suggested re-wording of the motion to accommodate this concern. Best wishes, Jonathan From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: 04 April 2012 14:22 To: council@gnso.icann.org GNSO Subject: [council] Motion to delay thick WHOIS PDP All, You will remember that in CR the Council expressed a desire to delay the thick whois PDP. Since then, the Council leadership and Staff have discussed this at length. First, it has been deemed necessary to have a formal motion to do this. Due to the deadline for motions being today, I have asked that a motion to that effect be prepared and I am submitting this today. I am doing this as Chair, from an administrative point of view, to help see this process moved forward. Second, we've had extensive discussions on what voting threshold should be used for this motion. In the end, we have ascertained that as there is no specific reference to a PDP suspension process in the bylaws, the default threshold should be used (see bylaws section 3.9: http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X-3.9). Motion attached. Thanks, <Motion to delay the 'thick' Whois PDP - 30 March 2012 LizG.doc>