Proposed endgame motion for Whois Task Force - with Whereas'es
Proposed Text for motion to be voted on September 6 2007 --------------------------------------------------------- Whereas the Whois Task force report has not yet been voted on as required by the by-laws, Whereas the Whois WG was created to collect further information as defined in its terms of reference, Whereas the Whois WG has now completed its work, Whereas almost 6 months have gone by since the release of the Whois Task force report, Proposed: The GSNO Council should now complete this work on Whois and make its report to the ICANN community and to the ICANN Board. In order to complete the work the following steps will be taken as scheduled: 1 - Staff will produce a Draft Final Report that references the TF report, the WG charter and the WG report by and which includes an overall description of the process by September 13. This overview should include the text of motions to be voted on at the end of this process. 2 - This report will be sent out for Constituency Statement Review on September 13. Constituencies will be asked to follow the by-laws on constituency statements. Specifically : 1. Constituency Statements. The Representatives will each be responsible for soliciting the position of their constituencies, at a minimum, and other comments as each Representative deems appropriate, regarding the issue under consideration. This position and other comments, as applicable, should be submitted in a formal statement to the task force chair (each, a "Constituency Statement") within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. Every Constituency Statement shall include at least the following: (i) If a Supermajority Vote was reached, a clear statement of the constituency's position on the issue; (ii) If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear statement of all positions espoused by constituency members; (iii) A clear statement of how the constituency arrived at its position(s). Specifically, the statement should detail specific constituency meetings, teleconferences, or other means of deliberating an issue, and a list of all members who participated or otherwise submitted their views; (iv) An analysis of how the issue would affect the constituency, including any financial impact on the constituency; and (v) An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary to implement the policy. Final Date for for updated statement: October 4, 2007 which is 35 days from the meeting when the Whois WG report was discussed 3 - Staff will Incorporate Constituency comments into Final Report by October 11, 2007 4 - Staff is requested to produce staff implementation notes by October 15 5 - Community Public Comment on Final Report: October 15 - November 6, 2007 6 - A Public and Council Discussion will be held during the LA Public Meeting 7 - Final vote on first GNSO Council meeting after November 6, 2007 ---------------------------
Avri Doria wrote:
Proposed Text for motion to be voted on September 6 2007
Thanks for the detail Avri - this is helpful. Might I suggest one small amendment? Specifically as it relates to the following:
- Community Public Comment on Final Report: October 15 - November 6, 2007
6 - A Public and Council Discussion will be held during the LA Public Meeting
7 - Final vote on first GNSO Council meeting after November 6, 2007
I would like to propose that the public comment period end at the public discussion of the of issue during the LA meeting. This would then allow council to take all constituency, public and written commentary into account for deliberation on the agenda during the L.A. meeting, rather than at the next meeting thereafter. This would have the effect of shortening the public comment period by only 3 business days, which i believe would be more then offset by the value of discussing the issue several times you propose during the face to face meetings in LA. It would be nice to get this one off the books in one way or another at the LA Public Meeting. Therefore, the formal amendment that I would like to make is as follows: - that "November 6, 2007" in step 5 be replaced with "October 31, 2007" - that "after November 6, 2007" in step 7 be replaced with "during the LA Public Meeting". Thanks in advance for your consideration. -- Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc. http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
I formally oppose the suggestion to shorten the public comment period timetable proposed by the Council chair. Unseemly haste on this most high profile of issues is unwise. Philip
Philip Sheppard wrote:
I formally oppose the suggestion to shorten the public comment period timetable proposed by the Council chair.
Unseemly haste on this most high profile of issues is unwise.
I believe that the proper process is to request a second on the amendment and then put it to a vote. If the amendment is viewed as unfriendly, it would be voted on separately, IIRC. If you don't agree with the amendment, then vote against it. If it becomes part of the motion and you are still uncomfortable with it, then vote against the whole package or make a counter-motion. Also, I'd note that tightening up the schedule by three business days is hardly "unseemly haste", although I do applaud the breadth of your rhetorical skills. -- Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc. http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
I second the motion to expedite the process by three days. This seems absoletely reasonable to me since it will enable the council to finish its work on this PDP at the LA meeting. Best, tom Am 31.08.2007 schrieb Ross Rader:
Philip Sheppard wrote:
I formally oppose the suggestion to shorten the public comment period timetable proposed by the Council chair.
Unseemly haste on this most high profile of issues is unwise.
I believe that the proper process is to request a second on the amendment and then put it to a vote. If the amendment is viewed as unfriendly, it would be voted on separately, IIRC.
If you don't agree with the amendment, then vote against it. If it becomes part of the motion and you are still uncomfortable with it, then vote against the whole package or make a counter-motion.
Also, I'd note that tightening up the schedule by three business days is hardly "unseemly haste", although I do applaud the breadth of your rhetorical skills.
-- Regards,
Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc.
http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w
All, It seems to me to be valid to have this issue and motion expedited to ensure that it is reviewed and decided upon by those that have followed the process and that is concluded at the LA meeting. Regards, Adrian Kinderis Managing Director AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd Level 8, 10 Queens Road Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 Email: adrian@ausregistry.com Web: www.ausregistrygroup.com The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Keller Sent: Friday, 31 August 2007 6:58 PM To: Ross Rader Cc: 'Council GNSO' Subject: Re: [council] Proposed endgame motion for Whois Task Force - with Whereas'es I second the motion to expedite the process by three days. This seems absoletely reasonable to me since it will enable the council to finish its work on this PDP at the LA meeting. Best, tom Am 31.08.2007 schrieb Ross Rader:
Philip Sheppard wrote:
I formally oppose the suggestion to shorten the public comment period
timetable proposed by the Council chair.
Unseemly haste on this most high profile of issues is unwise.
I believe that the proper process is to request a second on the amendment and then put it to a vote. If the amendment is viewed as unfriendly, it would be voted on separately, IIRC.
If you don't agree with the amendment, then vote against it. If it becomes part of the motion and you are still uncomfortable with it, then vote against the whole package or make a counter-motion.
Also, I'd note that tightening up the schedule by three business days is hardly "unseemly haste", although I do applaud the breadth of your rhetorical skills.
-- Regards,
Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc.
http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w
I agree that we can and should slightly expedite the motion so that progress can be made in Los Angeles. Robin Adrian Kinderis wrote:
All,
It seems to me to be valid to have this issue and motion expedited to ensure that it is reviewed and decided upon by those that have followed the process and that is concluded at the LA meeting.
Regards,
Adrian Kinderis Managing Director AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd Level 8, 10 Queens Road Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 Email: adrian@ausregistry.com Web: www.ausregistrygroup.com
The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Keller Sent: Friday, 31 August 2007 6:58 PM To: Ross Rader Cc: 'Council GNSO' Subject: Re: [council] Proposed endgame motion for Whois Task Force - with Whereas'es
I second the motion to expedite the process by three days. This seems absoletely reasonable to me since it will enable the council to finish its work on this PDP at the LA meeting.
Best,
tom
Am 31.08.2007 schrieb Ross Rader:
Philip Sheppard wrote:
I formally oppose the suggestion to shorten the public comment period
timetable proposed by the Council chair.
Unseemly haste on this most high profile of issues is unwise.
I believe that the proper process is to request a second on the amendment and then put it to a vote. If the amendment is viewed as unfriendly, it would be voted on separately, IIRC.
If you don't agree with the amendment, then vote against it. If it becomes part of the motion and you are still uncomfortable with it,
then
vote against the whole package or make a counter-motion.
Also, I'd note that tightening up the schedule by three business days
is
hardly "unseemly haste", although I do applaud the breadth of your rhetorical skills.
-- Regards,
Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc.
http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
Gruss,
tom
(__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w
Hi, I have sent a question to the Legal Counsel asking if there was any by-law based reason why this would not be allowed. thanks a. On 2 sep 2007, at 22.36, Robin Gross wrote:
I agree that we can and should slightly expedite the motion so that progress can be made in Los Angeles.
Robin
Adrian Kinderis wrote:
All,
It seems to me to be valid to have this issue and motion expedited to ensure that it is reviewed and decided upon by those that have followed the process and that is concluded at the LA meeting.
Regards,
Adrian Kinderis Managing Director AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd Level 8, 10 Queens Road Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 Email: adrian@ausregistry.com Web: www.ausregistrygroup.com
The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Keller Sent: Friday, 31 August 2007 6:58 PM To: Ross Rader Cc: 'Council GNSO' Subject: Re: [council] Proposed endgame motion for Whois Task Force - with Whereas'es
I second the motion to expedite the process by three days. This seems absoletely reasonable to me since it will enable the council to finish its work on this PDP at the LA meeting.
Best,
tom
Am 31.08.2007 schrieb Ross Rader:
Philip Sheppard wrote:
I formally oppose the suggestion to shorten the public comment period
timetable proposed by the Council chair.
Unseemly haste on this most high profile of issues is unwise.
I believe that the proper process is to request a second on the amendment and then put it to a vote. If the amendment is viewed as unfriendly, it would be voted on separately, IIRC.
If you don't agree with the amendment, then vote against it. If it becomes part of the motion and you are still uncomfortable with it,
then
vote against the whole package or make a counter-motion.
Also, I'd note that tightening up the schedule by three business days
is
hardly "unseemly haste", although I do applaud the breadth of your rhetorical skills.
-- Regards,
Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc.
http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
Gruss,
tom
(__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w
Hi, I don't believe I can shorten the public review which is supposed to be 20 days. and I don't think it is a good idea to vote before that review is complete. In order to end the public comment by Oct 31, the public comment would need to begin by Oct 11. Since it can take 4 days after Liz finishes writing to get the material on the web site for the public comment, i just don't see that it would be possible for her to get the work done in 3 days after the end of the time limit for the constituencies. And I do want to give the constituencies enough time to deliberate. So, while I would really like to hold a public vote on this as you suggest, I just don't see how. a. On 31 aug 2007, at 14.25, Ross Rader wrote:
Avri Doria wrote:
Proposed Text for motion to be voted on September 6 2007
Thanks for the detail Avri - this is helpful. Might I suggest one small amendment? Specifically as it relates to the following:
- Community Public Comment on Final Report: October 15 - November 6, 2007
6 - A Public and Council Discussion will be held during the LA Public Meeting 7 - Final vote on first GNSO Council meeting after November 6, 2007
I would like to propose that the public comment period end at the public discussion of the of issue during the LA meeting. This would then allow council to take all constituency, public and written commentary into account for deliberation on the agenda during the L.A. meeting, rather than at the next meeting thereafter. This would have the effect of shortening the public comment period by only 3 business days, which i believe would be more then offset by the value of discussing the issue several times you propose during the face to face meetings in LA. It would be nice to get this one off the books in one way or another at the LA Public Meeting.
Therefore, the formal amendment that I would like to make is as follows:
- that "November 6, 2007" in step 5 be replaced with "October 31, 2007"
- that "after November 6, 2007" in step 7 be replaced with "during the LA Public Meeting".
Thanks in advance for your consideration.
-- Regards,
Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc.
http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
Hi Avri - I believe that the terms of the PDP have already been fulfilled, but that with such an important issue, further public comment is definitely warranted. Given that this comment period is optional and that we have had extensive public comment on the issues thus far, we should really be seeking to optimize for two important inputs: a) ensuring that the public views on the WG output is appropriately solicited and adequately understood by Council, and; b) ensure that the constituency views on the WG is appropriately solicited and adequately understood by Council. Given that the WG process was essentially a public process, we have already allowed for unprecedented and substanial input into the process. What we haven't done is provide the constituencies with a period in which to consider the report and its implications. There is actually one other option available to us - we could shorten up the time period for the constituency comments. I don't actually believe that this is where we should try to save time on the schedule, but it is an option. My strong preference is that we instead reduce the public comment period by three business days instead. I do understand the opposition to this proposal, but after seven years of discussion on this question, three years of focus on the current working group and six months devoted to the public working group process, I am disinclined to believe that a full 20 day comment period will have a material impact on the outcome of this process. Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
I don't believe I can shorten the public review which is supposed to be 20 days. and I don't think it is a good idea to vote before that review is complete.
In order to end the public comment by Oct 31, the public comment would need to begin by Oct 11. Since it can take 4 days after Liz finishes writing to get the material on the web site for the public comment, i just don't see that it would be possible for her to get the work done in 3 days after the end of the time limit for the constituencies. And I do want to give the constituencies enough time to deliberate.
So, while I would really like to hold a public vote on this as you suggest, I just don't see how.
a.
On 31 aug 2007, at 14.25, Ross Rader wrote:
Avri Doria wrote:
Proposed Text for motion to be voted on September 6 2007
Thanks for the detail Avri - this is helpful. Might I suggest one small amendment? Specifically as it relates to the following:
- Community Public Comment on Final Report: October 15 - November 6, 2007
6 - A Public and Council Discussion will be held during the LA Public Meeting 7 - Final vote on first GNSO Council meeting after November 6, 2007
I would like to propose that the public comment period end at the public discussion of the of issue during the LA meeting. This would then allow council to take all constituency, public and written commentary into account for deliberation on the agenda during the L.A. meeting, rather than at the next meeting thereafter. This would have the effect of shortening the public comment period by only 3 business days, which i believe would be more then offset by the value of discussing the issue several times you propose during the face to face meetings in LA. It would be nice to get this one off the books in one way or another at the LA Public Meeting.
Therefore, the formal amendment that I would like to make is as follows:
- that "November 6, 2007" in step 5 be replaced with "October 31, 2007"
- that "after November 6, 2007" in step 7 be replaced with "during the LA Public Meeting".
Thanks in advance for your consideration.
-- Regards,
Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc.
http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
-- Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc. http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
participants (7)
-
Adrian Kinderis -
Avri Doria -
Avri Doria -
Philip Sheppard -
Robin Gross -
Ross Rader -
Thomas Keller