Proposed Resolution re Domain Tasting
I offer the following draft resolution, taken from the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group: Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting, the Council hereby initiates a Policy Development Process, and commissions a duly constituted Working Group with the following Terms of Reference: 1. Review and assess all the effects of domain tasting activities that have been identified. 2. Judge whether the overall effects justify measures to be taken to impede domain tasting. 3. If the answer to 2 is affirmative, then consider the likely impacts upon the Constituencies of various potential measures, and recommend measures designed to impede domain tasting. This Working Group shall report back to Council by January 24, 2008. I am sure this needs additional language about PDPs, at least, but thought this would be a good start for discussion. Kind regards, Mike Rodenbaugh
Hi, Thanks for submitting the motion. My original planning for tomorrow's meeting had been to discuss the report at this meting and then work our way toward a decision on a PDP at the meeting on 31 Oct after the open comments. Would this be acceptable or do you think we should vote on it as soon as tomorrow. In any case, as things currently stand in the bylaws we cannot do a working group as the main vehicle in a PDP, but need to either use a Committee of the Whole or a Task Force. We can create Working Groups for other purposes and as spins-off to investigate specific issues but until the by-laws are changed, not for PDP processes. Please let me know if holding the vote on this motion until the open meeting in LA is ok. thanks a. On 9 okt 2007, at 02.40, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
I offer the following draft resolution, taken from the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group:
Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting, the Council hereby initiates a Policy Development Process, and commissions a duly constituted Working Group with the following Terms of Reference:
1. Review and assess all the effects of domain tasting activities that have been identified.
2. Judge whether the overall effects justify measures to be taken to impede domain tasting.
3. If the answer to 2 is affirmative, then consider the likely impacts upon the Constituencies of various potential measures, and recommend measures designed to impede domain tasting.
This Working Group shall report back to Council by January 24, 2008.
I am sure this needs additional language about PDPs, at least, but thought this would be a good start for discussion.
Kind regards,
Mike Rodenbaugh
Is there any reason why a task force could not function like a working group? Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:46 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Resolution re Domain Tasting Hi, Thanks for submitting the motion. My original planning for tomorrow's meeting had been to discuss the report at this meting and then work our way toward a decision on a PDP at the meeting on 31 Oct after the open comments. Would this be acceptable or do you think we should vote on it as soon as tomorrow. In any case, as things currently stand in the bylaws we cannot do a working group as the main vehicle in a PDP, but need to either use a Committee of the Whole or a Task Force. We can create Working Groups for other purposes and as spins-off to investigate specific issues but until the by-laws are changed, not for PDP processes. Please let me know if holding the vote on this motion until the open meeting in LA is ok. thanks a. On 9 okt 2007, at 02.40, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote: I offer the following draft resolution, taken from the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group: Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting, the Council hereby initiates a Policy Development Process, and commissions a duly constituted Working Group with the following Terms of Reference: 1. Review and assess all the effects of domain tasting activities that have been identified. 2. Judge whether the overall effects justify measures to be taken to impede domain tasting. 3. If the answer to 2 is affirmative, then consider the likely impacts upon the Constituencies of various potential measures, and recommend measures designed to impede domain tasting. This Working Group shall report back to Council by January 24, 2008. I am sure this needs additional language about PDPs, at least, but thought this would be a good start for discussion. Kind regards, Mike Rodenbaugh
We are just weeks from LA. Let's have the vote in LA. Avri Doria <avri@psg.com> Sent by: To owner-council@gns Council GNSO o.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org> cc 11/10/2007 04:46 Subject AM Re: [council] Proposed Resolution re Domain Tasting Hi, Thanks for submitting the motion. My original planning for tomorrow's meeting had been to discuss the report at this meting and then work our way toward a decision on a PDP at the meeting on 31 Oct after the open comments. Would this be acceptable or do you think we should vote on it as soon as tomorrow. In any case, as things currently stand in the bylaws we cannot do a working group as the main vehicle in a PDP, but need to either use a Committee of the Whole or a Task Force. We can create Working Groups for other purposes and as spins-off to investigate specific issues but until the by-laws are changed, not for PDP processes. Please let me know if holding the vote on this motion until the open meeting in LA is ok. thanks a. On 9 okt 2007, at 02.40, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote: I offer the following draft resolution, taken from the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group: Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting, the Council hereby initiates a Policy Development Process, and commissions a duly constituted Working Group with the following Terms of Reference: 1. Review and assess all the effects of domain tasting activities that have been identified. 2. Judge whether the overall effects justify measures to be taken to impede domain tasting. 3. If the answer to 2 is affirmative, then consider the likely impacts upon the Constituencies of various potential measures, and recommend measures designed to impede domain tasting. This Working Group shall report back to Council by January 24, 2008. I am sure this needs additional language about PDPs, at least, but thought this would be a good start for discussion. Kind regards, Mike Rodenbaugh
Thanks Avri. I saw the agenda for the meeting and it said 'decision on next step' and so I propose that the next step is to move this issue forward in policy development. Thanks for the reference to the bylaws: <http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA-8> http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA-8. I copy Secs. 4 and 8 below. I do not know if Sec. 8 has ever been used, but it seems to me to make sense in this situation, where we have already done a lot of factfinding, and the adverse effects of this activity have been ongoing and increasing for two years. I honestly don't think any working group or a task force is needed at this point. I think the situation warrants multiple, prompt measures to impede commercial domain tasting, and now I see that the PDP gives another option which seems to fit well in this circumstance. So, I would like to propose a different motion, please. If 1/3 of the Councilors vote for a PDP on this per Section 4, then Council has two options. One option is a task force detailed in Section 7, the other option is 'collect information' for Council deliberation per Section 8. As we have already collected a lot of information, I think this would mean further gathering of formal Constituency Statements within 35 days, then issuance of a Staff report 15 days later which combines those Statements with the Report of the ad hoc Group and the original Issues Report, and any other information desired and obtained in the meanwhile. That report would issue for 20-day public comment, then Council would deliberate and make recommendations to the Board within 15 days from then. That should be sometime in January, whether we vote on it tomorrow or in LA, and with some slippage in the schedule. I would prefer to vote on it tomorrow so that we can move forward, have live discussions on it during Constituency Day and perhaps otherwise in LA, with the Constituency Statements due a couple weeks later. If there seems strong reason to postpone this vote, then I could be OK with that. Very interested to hear others' views. My new proposed motion: Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting, the Council hereby initiates a Policy Development Process, and pursuant to Sections 4 and 8 of Annex A of the Bylaws, resolves as follows: 1. To request that each constituency appoint a representative to solicit the constituency's views on the issues presented in the Issues Report by Staff and in the Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group. Each such representative is asked to submit a Constituency Statement to Olof Nordling within thirty-five (35) calendar days of this resolution. 2. To request that ICANN Staff take all Constituency Statements, the two prior reports, and other information and compile (and post on the Comment Site) an Initial Report within fifty (50) calendar days of this resolution. 3. Thereafter, the PDP shall follow the provisions of Item 9 of Annex A of the Bylaws, in creating a Final Report for Council. My apologies for not understanding this option previously. Thanks, Mike Rodenbaugh 4. Commencement of the PDP At the meeting of the Council initiating the PDP, the Council shall decide, by a majority vote of members present at the meeting, whether to appoint a task force to address the issue. If the Council votes: a. In favor of convening a task force, it shall do so in accordance with the provisions of Item <http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA-7> 7 below. b. Against convening a task force, then it will collect information on the policy issue in accordance with the provisions of Item <http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA-8> 8 below. 8. Procedure if No Task Force is Formed a. If the Council decides not to convene a task force, the Council will request that, within ten (10) calendar days thereafter, each constituency appoint a representative to solicit the constituency's views on the issue. Each such representative shall be asked to submit a Constituency Statement to the Staff Manager within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. b. The Council may also pursue other options that it deems appropriate to assist in the PDP, including appointing a particular individual or organization to gather information on the issue or scheduling meetings for deliberation or briefing. All such information shall be submitted to the Staff Manager within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. c. The Staff Manager will take all Constituency Statements, Public Comment Statements, and other information and compile (and post on the Comment Site) an Initial Report within fifty (50) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. Thereafter, the PDP shall follow the provisions of Item 9 below in creating a Final Report. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:46 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Resolution re Domain Tasting Hi, Thanks for submitting the motion. My original planning for tomorrow's meeting had been to discuss the report at this meting and then work our way toward a decision on a PDP at the meeting on 31 Oct after the open comments. Would this be acceptable or do you think we should vote on it as soon as tomorrow. In any case, as things currently stand in the bylaws we cannot do a working group as the main vehicle in a PDP, but need to either use a Committee of the Whole or a Task Force. We can create Working Groups for other purposes and as spins-off to investigate specific issues but until the by-laws are changed, not for PDP processes. Please let me know if holding the vote on this motion until the open meeting in LA is ok. thanks a. On 9 okt 2007, at 02.40, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote: I offer the following draft resolution, taken from the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group: Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting, the Council hereby initiates a Policy Development Process, and commissions a duly constituted Working Group with the following Terms of Reference: 1. Review and assess all the effects of domain tasting activities that have been identified. 2. Judge whether the overall effects justify measures to be taken to impede domain tasting. 3. If the answer to 2 is affirmative, then consider the likely impacts upon the Constituencies of various potential measures, and recommend measures designed to impede domain tasting. This Working Group shall report back to Council by January 24, 2008. I am sure this needs additional language about PDPs, at least, but thought this would be a good start for discussion. Kind regards, Mike Rodenbaugh
Section 8 was used for the new gTLD PDP. Regards, Bruce ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, 11 October 2007 11:04 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Resolution re Domain Tasting Thanks Avri. I saw the agenda for the meeting and it said 'decision on next step' and so I propose that the next step is to move this issue forward in policy development. Thanks for the reference to the bylaws: http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA-8 <http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA-8
.
I copy Secs. 4 and 8 below. I do not know if Sec. 8 has ever been used, but it seems to me to make sense in this situation, where we have already done a lot of factfinding, and the adverse effects of this activity have been ongoing and increasing for two years. I honestly don't think any working group or a task force is needed at this point. I think the situation warrants multiple, prompt measures to impede commercial domain tasting, and now I see that the PDP gives another option which seems to fit well in this circumstance. So, I would like to propose a different motion, please. If 1/3 of the Councilors vote for a PDP on this per Section 4, then Council has two options. One option is a task force detailed in Section 7, the other option is 'collect information' for Council deliberation per Section 8. As we have already collected a lot of information, I think this would mean further gathering of formal Constituency Statements within 35 days, then issuance of a Staff report 15 days later which combines those Statements with the Report of the ad hoc Group and the original Issues Report, and any other information desired and obtained in the meanwhile. That report would issue for 20-day public comment, then Council would deliberate and make recommendations to the Board within 15 days from then. That should be sometime in January, whether we vote on it tomorrow or in LA, and with some slippage in the schedule. I would prefer to vote on it tomorrow so that we can move forward, have live discussions on it during Constituency Day and perhaps otherwise in LA, with the Constituency Statements due a couple weeks later. If there seems strong reason to postpone this vote, then I could be OK with that. Very interested to hear others' views. My new proposed motion: Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting, the Council hereby initiates a Policy Development Process, and pursuant to Sections 4 and 8 of Annex A of the Bylaws, resolves as follows: 1. To request that each constituency appoint a representative to solicit the constituency's views on the issues presented in the Issues Report by Staff and in the Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group. Each such representative is asked to submit a Constituency Statement to Olof Nordling within thirty-five (35) calendar days of this resolution. 2. To request that ICANN Staff take all Constituency Statements, the two prior reports, and other information and compile (and post on the Comment Site) an Initial Report within fifty (50) calendar days of this resolution. 3. Thereafter, the PDP shall follow the provisions of Item 9 of Annex A of the Bylaws, in creating a Final Report for Council. My apologies for not understanding this option previously. Thanks, Mike Rodenbaugh 4. Commencement of the PDP At the meeting of the Council initiating the PDP, the Council shall decide, by a majority vote of members present at the meeting, whether to appoint a task force to address the issue. If the Council votes: a. In favor of convening a task force, it shall do so in accordance with the provisions of Item 7 below <http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA-7
.
b. Against convening a task force, then it will collect information on the policy issue in accordance with the provisions of Item 8 below <http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA-8
.
8. Procedure if No Task Force is Formed a. If the Council decides not to convene a task force, the Council will request that, within ten (10) calendar days thereafter, each constituency appoint a representative to solicit the constituency's views on the issue. Each such representative shall be asked to submit a Constituency Statement to the Staff Manager within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. b. The Council may also pursue other options that it deems appropriate to assist in the PDP, including appointing a particular individual or organization to gather information on the issue or scheduling meetings for deliberation or briefing. All such information shall be submitted to the Staff Manager within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. c. The Staff Manager will take all Constituency Statements, Public Comment Statements, and other information and compile (and post on the Comment Site) an Initial Report within fifty (50) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. Thereafter, the PDP shall follow the provisions of Item 9 below in creating a Final Report. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:46 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Resolution re Domain Tasting Hi, Thanks for submitting the motion. My original planning for tomorrow's meeting had been to discuss the report at this meting and then work our way toward a decision on a PDP at the meeting on 31 Oct after the open comments. Would this be acceptable or do you think we should vote on it as soon as tomorrow. In any case, as things currently stand in the bylaws we cannot do a working group as the main vehicle in a PDP, but need to either use a Committee of the Whole or a Task Force. We can create Working Groups for other purposes and as spins-off to investigate specific issues but until the by-laws are changed, not for PDP processes. Please let me know if holding the vote on this motion until the open meeting in LA is ok. thanks a. On 9 okt 2007, at 02.40, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote: I offer the following draft resolution, taken from the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group: Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting, the Council hereby initiates a Policy Development Process, and commissions a duly constituted Working Group with the following Terms of Reference: 1. Review and assess all the effects of domain tasting activities that have been identified. 2. Judge whether the overall effects justify measures to be taken to impede domain tasting. 3. If the answer to 2 is affirmative, then consider the likely impacts upon the Constituencies of various potential measures, and recommend measures designed to impede domain tasting. This Working Group shall report back to Council by January 24, 2008. I am sure this needs additional language about PDPs, at least, but thought this would be a good start for discussion. Kind regards, Mike Rodenbaugh
Hi, Yes, in the proposed agenda I was continuing to follow the procedures that had become our current practice, i.e. proceeding in a slower and more deliberate manner then was dictated by the by-laws. Since we have had a call to follow the by-laws strictly, a call I do not believe I can ignore, I think the procedure I must follow is as follows: We have 2 votes: - First we decided whether to initiate the PDP (33% to succeed) - Second we decide on whether to create a Task Force (Majority to succeed) As I read the by-laws, the required vote is on whether to create a task Force or not. If the vote to create a Task Force fails then the path you suggest in your motion becomes the default. One note on your discussion below, while the by-laws specify when we start the council deliberations on the content of the initial report, they do not seem to define how long we may deliberate. Thanks a. On 11 okt 2007, at 03.04, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
Thanks Avri. I saw the agenda for the meeting and it said ‘decision on next step’ and so I propose that the next step is to move this issue forward in policy development. Thanks for the reference to the bylaws: http://www.icann.org/general/archive- bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA-8.
I copy Secs. 4 and 8 below. I do not know if Sec. 8 has ever been used, but it seems to me to make sense in this situation, where we have already done a lot of factfinding, and the adverse effects of this activity have been ongoing and increasing for two years. I honestly don’t think any working group or a task force is needed at this point. I think the situation warrants multiple, prompt measures to impede commercial domain tasting, and now I see that the PDP gives another option which seems to fit well in this circumstance. So, I would like to propose a different motion, please.
If 1/3 of the Councilors vote for a PDP on this per Section 4, then Council has two options. One option is a task force detailed in Section 7, the other option is ‘collect information’ for Council deliberation per Section 8. As we have already collected a lot of information, I think this would mean further gathering of formal Constituency Statements within 35 days, then issuance of a Staff report 15 days later which combines those Statements with the Report of the ad hoc Group and the original Issues Report, and any other information desired and obtained in the meanwhile. That report would issue for 20-day public comment, then Council would deliberate and make recommendations to the Board within 15 days from then.
That should be sometime in January, whether we vote on it tomorrow or in LA, and with some slippage in the schedule. I would prefer to vote on it tomorrow so that we can move forward, have live discussions on it during Constituency Day and perhaps otherwise in LA, with the Constituency Statements due a couple weeks later. If there seems strong reason to postpone this vote, then I could be OK with that. Very interested to hear others’ views.
My new proposed motion:
Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting, the Council hereby initiates a Policy Development Process, and pursuant to Sections 4 and 8 of Annex A of the Bylaws, resolves as follows:
1. To request that each constituency appoint a representative to solicit the constituency's views on the issues presented in the Issues Report by Staff and in the Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group. Each such representative is asked to submit a Constituency Statement to Olof Nordling within thirty-five (35) calendar days of this resolution.
2. To request that ICANN Staff take all Constituency Statements, the two prior reports, and other information and compile (and post on the Comment Site) an Initial Report within fifty (50) calendar days of this resolution.
3. Thereafter, the PDP shall follow the provisions of Item 9 of Annex A of the Bylaws, in creating a Final Report for Council.
My apologies for not understanding this option previously.
Thanks,
Mike Rodenbaugh
4. Commencement of the PDP
At the meeting of the Council initiating the PDP, the Council shall decide, by a majority vote of members present at the meeting, whether to appoint a task force to address the issue. If the Council votes:
a. In favor of convening a task force, it shall do so in accordance with the provisions of Item 7 below.
b. Against convening a task force, then it will collect information on the policy issue in accordance with the provisions of Item 8 below.
8. Procedure if No Task Force is Formed
a. If the Council decides not to convene a task force, the Council will request that, within ten (10) calendar days thereafter, each constituency appoint a representative to solicit the constituency's views on the issue. Each such representative shall be asked to submit a Constituency Statement to the Staff Manager within thirty- five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP.
b. The Council may also pursue other options that it deems appropriate to assist in the PDP, including appointing a particular individual or organization to gather information on the issue or scheduling meetings for deliberation or briefing. All such information shall be submitted to the Staff Manager within thirty- five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP.
c. The Staff Manager will take all Constituency Statements, Public Comment Statements, and other information and compile (and post on the Comment Site) an Initial Report within fifty (50) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. Thereafter, the PDP shall follow the provisions of Item 9 below in creating a Final Report.
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:46 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Resolution re Domain Tasting
Hi,
Thanks for submitting the motion.
My original planning for tomorrow's meeting had been to discuss the report at this meting and then work our way toward a decision on a PDP at the meeting on 31 Oct after the open comments. Would this be acceptable or do you think we should vote on it as soon as tomorrow.
In any case, as things currently stand in the bylaws we cannot do a working group as the main vehicle in a PDP, but need to either use a Committee of the Whole or a Task Force. We can create Working Groups for other purposes and as spins-off to investigate specific issues but until the by-laws are changed, not for PDP processes.
Please let me know if holding the vote on this motion until the open meeting in LA is ok.
thanks
a.
On 9 okt 2007, at 02.40, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
I offer the following draft resolution, taken from the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group:
Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting, the Council hereby initiates a Policy Development Process, and commissions a duly constituted Working Group with the following Terms of Reference:
1. Review and assess all the effects of domain tasting activities that have been identified.
2. Judge whether the overall effects justify measures to be taken to impede domain tasting.
3. If the answer to 2 is affirmative, then consider the likely impacts upon the Constituencies of various potential measures, and recommend measures designed to impede domain tasting.
This Working Group shall report back to Council by January 24, 2008.
I am sure this needs additional language about PDPs, at least, but thought this would be a good start for discussion.
Kind regards,
Mike Rodenbaugh
Totally disagree Mike. We desparately need to move away from the tendency to have the Council do everything. It does not scale and it does not adequately involve the broader community as a task force can. If a PDP is initiated, the RyC will strongly support the task force approach. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:04 PM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Resolution re Domain Tasting Thanks Avri. I saw the agenda for the meeting and it said 'decision on next step' and so I propose that the next step is to move this issue forward in policy development. Thanks for the reference to the bylaws: http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA-8 <http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA-8
.
I copy Secs. 4 and 8 below. I do not know if Sec. 8 has ever been used, but it seems to me to make sense in this situation, where we have already done a lot of factfinding, and the adverse effects of this activity have been ongoing and increasing for two years. I honestly don't think any working group or a task force is needed at this point. I think the situation warrants multiple, prompt measures to impede commercial domain tasting, and now I see that the PDP gives another option which seems to fit well in this circumstance. So, I would like to propose a different motion, please. If 1/3 of the Councilors vote for a PDP on this per Section 4, then Council has two options. One option is a task force detailed in Section 7, the other option is 'collect information' for Council deliberation per Section 8. As we have already collected a lot of information, I think this would mean further gathering of formal Constituency Statements within 35 days, then issuance of a Staff report 15 days later which combines those Statements with the Report of the ad hoc Group and the original Issues Report, and any other information desired and obtained in the meanwhile. That report would issue for 20-day public comment, then Council would deliberate and make recommendations to the Board within 15 days from then. That should be sometime in January, whether we vote on it tomorrow or in LA, and with some slippage in the schedule. I would prefer to vote on it tomorrow so that we can move forward, have live discussions on it during Constituency Day and perhaps otherwise in LA, with the Constituency Statements due a couple weeks later. If there seems strong reason to postpone this vote, then I could be OK with that. Very interested to hear others' views. My new proposed motion: Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting, the Council hereby initiates a Policy Development Process, and pursuant to Sections 4 and 8 of Annex A of the Bylaws, resolves as follows: 1. To request that each constituency appoint a representative to solicit the constituency's views on the issues presented in the Issues Report by Staff and in the Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group. Each such representative is asked to submit a Constituency Statement to Olof Nordling within thirty-five (35) calendar days of this resolution. 2. To request that ICANN Staff take all Constituency Statements, the two prior reports, and other information and compile (and post on the Comment Site) an Initial Report within fifty (50) calendar days of this resolution. 3. Thereafter, the PDP shall follow the provisions of Item 9 of Annex A of the Bylaws, in creating a Final Report for Council. My apologies for not understanding this option previously. Thanks, Mike Rodenbaugh 4. Commencement of the PDP At the meeting of the Council initiating the PDP, the Council shall decide, by a majority vote of members present at the meeting, whether to appoint a task force to address the issue. If the Council votes: a. In favor of convening a task force, it shall do so in accordance with the provisions of Item 7 below <http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA-7
.
b. Against convening a task force, then it will collect information on the policy issue in accordance with the provisions of Item 8 below <http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA-8
.
8. Procedure if No Task Force is Formed a. If the Council decides not to convene a task force, the Council will request that, within ten (10) calendar days thereafter, each constituency appoint a representative to solicit the constituency's views on the issue. Each such representative shall be asked to submit a Constituency Statement to the Staff Manager within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. b. The Council may also pursue other options that it deems appropriate to assist in the PDP, including appointing a particular individual or organization to gather information on the issue or scheduling meetings for deliberation or briefing. All such information shall be submitted to the Staff Manager within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. c. The Staff Manager will take all Constituency Statements, Public Comment Statements, and other information and compile (and post on the Comment Site) an Initial Report within fifty (50) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. Thereafter, the PDP shall follow the provisions of Item 9 below in creating a Final Report. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:46 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Resolution re Domain Tasting Hi, Thanks for submitting the motion. My original planning for tomorrow's meeting had been to discuss the report at this meting and then work our way toward a decision on a PDP at the meeting on 31 Oct after the open comments. Would this be acceptable or do you think we should vote on it as soon as tomorrow. In any case, as things currently stand in the bylaws we cannot do a working group as the main vehicle in a PDP, but need to either use a Committee of the Whole or a Task Force. We can create Working Groups for other purposes and as spins-off to investigate specific issues but until the by-laws are changed, not for PDP processes. Please let me know if holding the vote on this motion until the open meeting in LA is ok. thanks a. On 9 okt 2007, at 02.40, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote: I offer the following draft resolution, taken from the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group: Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting, the Council hereby initiates a Policy Development Process, and commissions a duly constituted Working Group with the following Terms of Reference: 1. Review and assess all the effects of domain tasting activities that have been identified. 2. Judge whether the overall effects justify measures to be taken to impede domain tasting. 3. If the answer to 2 is affirmative, then consider the likely impacts upon the Constituencies of various potential measures, and recommend measures designed to impede domain tasting. This Working Group shall report back to Council by January 24, 2008. I am sure this needs additional language about PDPs, at least, but thought this would be a good start for discussion. Kind regards, Mike Rodenbaugh
Hi, Thanks for submitting the motion. My original planning for tomorrow's meeting had been to discuss the report at this meting and then work our way toward a decision on a PDP at the meeting on 31 Oct after the open comments. Would this be acceptable or do you think we should vote on it as soon as tomorrow. In any case, as things currently stand in the bylaws we cannot do a working group as the main vehicle in a PDP, but need to either use a Committee of the Whole or a Task Force. We can create Working Groups for other purposes and as spins-off to investigate specific issues but until the by-laws are changed, not for PDP processes. Please let me know if holding the vote on this motion until the open meeting in LA is ok. thanks a. On 9 okt 2007, at 02.40, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
I offer the following draft resolution, taken from the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group:
Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting, the Council hereby initiates a Policy Development Process, and commissions a duly constituted Working Group with the following Terms of Reference:
1. Review and assess all the effects of domain tasting activities that have been identified.
2. Judge whether the overall effects justify measures to be taken to impede domain tasting.
3. If the answer to 2 is affirmative, then consider the likely impacts upon the Constituencies of various potential measures, and recommend measures designed to impede domain tasting.
This Working Group shall report back to Council by January 24, 2008.
I am sure this needs additional language about PDPs, at least, but thought this would be a good start for discussion.
Kind regards,
Mike Rodenbaugh
presuming this goes down the PDP path, the council should attempt to do so within the confines of the process outlined in the bylaws. not to sound critical, but why does this keep getting ignored? The motion should be amended to strike the proposed timelines and instead use those found in the PDP as outlined in the bylaws. I'm not in favor of assuming, out of the gate, that we can't work within the timelines required by the PDP. If this is the case, then I'm likely inclined to believe that we have too much work in front of us to reasonably proceed along the timelines specified and we've prioritized our efforts badly. If we have too much work in front of us, then we shouldn't be voting in favor of every PDP request that comes down the pike. Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for submitting the motion.
My original planning for tomorrow's meeting had been to discuss the report at this meting and then work our way toward a decision on a PDP at the meeting on 31 Oct after the open comments. Would this be acceptable or do you think we should vote on it as soon as tomorrow.
In any case, as things currently stand in the bylaws we cannot do a working group as the main vehicle in a PDP, but need to either use a Committee of the Whole or a Task Force. We can create Working Groups for other purposes and as spins-off to investigate specific issues but until the by-laws are changed, not for PDP processes.
Please let me know if holding the vote on this motion until the open meeting in LA is ok.
thanks a.
On 9 okt 2007, at 02.40, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
I offer the following draft resolution, taken from the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group:
Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting, the Council hereby initiates a Policy Development Process, and commissions a duly constituted Working Group with the following Terms of Reference:
1. Review and assess all the effects of domain tasting activities that have been identified.
2. Judge whether the overall effects justify measures to be taken to impede domain tasting.
3. If the answer to 2 is affirmative, then consider the likely impacts upon the Constituencies of various potential measures, and recommend measures designed to impede domain tasting.
This Working Group shall report back to Council by January 24, 2008.
I am sure this needs additional language about PDPs, at least, but thought this would be a good start for discussion.
Kind regards,
Mike Rodenbaugh
-- Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc. http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
I'm concerned that we are moving too fast with this issue. I still haven't seen why this is such a pressing concern and I haven't been convinced a PDP is the right next step. I think more work needs to be done to justify the need for a PDP rather than just assume that is the next course and hurry to get there. Robin Ross Rader wrote:
presuming this goes down the PDP path, the council should attempt to do so within the confines of the process outlined in the bylaws.
not to sound critical, but why does this keep getting ignored?
The motion should be amended to strike the proposed timelines and instead use those found in the PDP as outlined in the bylaws. I'm not in favor of assuming, out of the gate, that we can't work within the timelines required by the PDP. If this is the case, then I'm likely inclined to believe that we have too much work in front of us to reasonably proceed along the timelines specified and we've prioritized our efforts badly. If we have too much work in front of us, then we shouldn't be voting in favor of every PDP request that comes down the pike.
Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for submitting the motion.
My original planning for tomorrow's meeting had been to discuss the report at this meting and then work our way toward a decision on a PDP at the meeting on 31 Oct after the open comments. Would this be acceptable or do you think we should vote on it as soon as tomorrow. In any case, as things currently stand in the bylaws we cannot do a working group as the main vehicle in a PDP, but need to either use a Committee of the Whole or a Task Force. We can create Working Groups for other purposes and as spins-off to investigate specific issues but until the by-laws are changed, not for PDP processes.
Please let me know if holding the vote on this motion until the open meeting in LA is ok.
thanks a.
On 9 okt 2007, at 02.40, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
I offer the following draft resolution, taken from the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group:
Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting, the Council hereby initiates a Policy Development Process, and commissions a duly constituted Working Group with the following Terms of Reference:
1. Review and assess all the effects of domain tasting activities that have been identified.
2. Judge whether the overall effects justify measures to be taken to impede domain tasting.
3. If the answer to 2 is affirmative, then consider the likely impacts upon the Constituencies of various potential measures, and recommend measures designed to impede domain tasting.
This Working Group shall report back to Council by January 24, 2008.
I am sure this needs additional language about PDPs, at least, but thought this would be a good start for discussion.
Kind regards,
Mike Rodenbaugh
For the RyC, we have not had time to fully consider this issue. For me personally, because of other pressing obligations, I haven't even finished reviewing the full report yet. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:28 PM Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Resolution re Domain Tasting
I'm concerned that we are moving too fast with this issue. I still haven't seen why this is such a pressing concern and I haven't been convinced a PDP is the right next step. I think more work needs to be done to justify the need for a PDP rather than just assume that is the next course and hurry to get there.
Robin
Ross Rader wrote:
presuming this goes down the PDP path, the council should
do so within the confines of the process outlined in the bylaws.
not to sound critical, but why does this keep getting ignored?
The motion should be amended to strike the proposed timelines and instead use those found in the PDP as outlined in the bylaws. I'm not in favor of assuming, out of the gate, that we can't work within the timelines required by the PDP. If this is the case, then I'm likely inclined to believe that we have too much work in front of us to reasonably proceed along the timelines specified and we've
attempt to prioritized
our efforts badly. If we have too much work in front of us, then we shouldn't be voting in favor of every PDP request that comes down the pike.
Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for submitting the motion.
My original planning for tomorrow's meeting had been to discuss the report at this meting and then work our way toward a decision on a PDP at the meeting on 31 Oct after the open comments. Would this be acceptable or do you think we should vote on it as soon as tomorrow. In any case, as things currently stand in the bylaws we cannot do a working group as the main vehicle in a PDP, but need to either use a Committee of the Whole or a Task Force. We can create Working Groups for other purposes and as spins-off to investigate specific issues but until the by-laws are changed, not for PDP processes.
Please let me know if holding the vote on this motion until the open meeting in LA is ok.
thanks a.
On 9 okt 2007, at 02.40, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
I offer the following draft resolution, taken from the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group:
Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting, the Council hereby initiates a Policy Development Process, and commissions a duly constituted Working Group with the following Terms of Reference:
1. Review and assess all the effects of domain tasting activities that have been identified.
2. Judge whether the overall effects justify measures to be taken to impede domain tasting.
3. If the answer to 2 is affirmative, then consider the likely impacts upon the Constituencies of various potential measures, and recommend measures designed to impede domain tasting.
This Working Group shall report back to Council by January 24, 2008.
I am sure this needs additional language about PDPs, at least, but thought this would be a good start for discussion.
Kind regards,
Mike Rodenbaugh
Hi, It is true that the council has long ignored the timetables in the PDP process, not so much out of wilfulness but out of a realisation that while the processes could be followed, the proscribed timetables were difficult to follow. This was pointed out in the LSE report, if I remember correctly. The entire process from the initial request for an issues report to the production of a final report and the commencement of Council deliberations takes 120 days (i have sketched out the process below). There is, as far as I can tell no limit n how long those council deliberations can take after the release of the Final Report, tough I see no by-law provision for further process other then deliberation after that 120 day period. Having said that, I am willing to try and constrain the process to the time table. And with Ross calling us to account on the by-laws, we certainly must consider doing so as despite request for change in the by-laws, we have not yet received any change in by-laws from the Board not have we received any formal dispensation of the requirement to follow the timetable as currently documented. In that case we need to vote today to initiate both PDP proposals as we are long beyond the 15 day mark for deciding on the initiation of the PDP. For both PDP proposals we need to do the following: - Get the report from Staff on the reports they have submitted. - Hold a vote to initiate the PDP - 33% need to vote yes in order to initiate the PDP - if the vote succeeds then hold a majority vote on whether to form a Task Force or not. - if not, then we can consider forming a short term WG to assist in the non TF option, but that working group will only have 35 days to complete its work. I will also have to work with staff to schedule council meetings so that we can attempt to meet the strict timing requirements for finishing the work and beginning deliberations. Thanks a. ----------------------------------------- A reminder of the timetable: Day 0 request for issues report Day 15 - release of the issues report Day 30 -vote on PDP (unless the board has requested the PDP in which case there is no vote) - majority decision on Task Force or Committee of the whole - Public announcement of PDP and commencement of public comment period Day 40 - if TF then constituency appointees to TF announced - if TF finish preparation of charter - if no TF then representative appointed from each constituency to solicit constituency views Day 45 - if TF first meeting, elect TF chair Day 50 - if TF end of public comment period Day 65 - all information submitted to Staff Manager, including from ad-hoc groups or working groups if they are formed to assist in the process. - all consituency statement received Day 70 - if Task Force release of Preliminary Task Force report Day 75 - if TF final meeting of TF to vote on report Day 80 - if TF then release of Final Task Force Report - if not TF then release of Initial Report - begin public comment period Day 100 - end of public comment period Day 110 - final Report submitted to GNSO chair Day 120 - Council begins deliberation on final report (the by-laws are not specific on how long the council may deliberate) On 11 okt 2007, at 02.44, Ross Rader wrote:
presuming this goes down the PDP path, the council should attempt to do so within the confines of the process outlined in the bylaws.
participants (8)
-
Avri Doria -
Avri Doria -
Bruce Tonkin -
cyrilchua＠atmdlaw.com.sg -
Gomes, Chuck -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Robin Gross -
Ross Rader