[council] Proposed Resolution re Domain Tasting

[Avri Doria]

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 at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- 
> council at 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20071011/b3f2fb00/attachment.html>