[gnso-dt-wg] RE: [council] Motions re Domain Tasting

[Avri Doria]

While it is probably clear, i meant to say,

I believe the motion as listed in the Agenda is not correct.

or maybe

I believe the motion as listed in the Agenda is incorrect.


a.


On 5 Mar 2008, at 10:52, Avri Doria wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
>
> I see  no reason why, if the recommendation from the DT for a  
> constituency and public review of the motion before proceeding is  
> approved, to not also send a request to legal counsel asking for an  
> opinion on whether the motion is within scope.  I think it can all  
> be done in parallel and will undertake to make this request if the  
> motion passes.
>
> BTW, speaking of this,  I believe the motion as listed in the Agenda  
> is not incorrect.

                                                                                                                                      ^

>  In this case it looks like we are being asked to vote on the motion  
> regarding AGP itself as opposed to actually voting on a Motion to  
> send the proposed motion out for a 21 day period during which  
> constituency statements could be updated and public comments could  
> be collected.
>
> If I understand correctly, I suggest the following motion is what we  
> are voting on (I have updated the wiki):
>
> Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain  
> Tasting
> and the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting;
>
> Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a  
> PDP on
> Domain Tasting and to request Constituency Impact Statements with  
> respect to
> issues set forth in the Issues Report and in the Final Outcomes  
> Report;
>
> Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the  
> formation of a
> small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the  
> Domain
> Tasting PDP (the "Design Team"), the principal volunteers to which  
> had been
> members of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were well-informed  
> of both
> the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and  
> the GNSO
> Initial Report on Domain Tasting (collectively with the Issues  
> Report, the
> "Reports on Domain Tasting");
>
> Whereas, the Design Team has met and agreed on a Draft Motion  
> attached to
> be set out for public comment and for Constituency Impact review;
>
> The GNSO Council RESOLVES:
>
> 1. The Draft Motion shall be posted for 21-day public comment on  
> March 7,
> 2008. Each Constituency shall have 21 days from March 7, 2008 to  
> update its
> Constituency Impact Statement with respect to this motion, if it so  
> chooses.
> The deadline for amended Statements shall be March 28, 2008.
>
> 2. ICANN Staff please shall provide a summary of any public comments
> and/or amended Constituency Impact Statements to the Council, via  
> submission
> of a Final Report with respect to this PDP, by April 4, 2008.
>
> 3. The Design Team shall then meet and confer with respect to the  
> Final
> Report, in order to consider any public comments and/or amended  
> Constituency
> Impact Statements and to consider any suggested amendments to the  
> Draft
> Motion, and shall recommend a Final Motion to be considered by  
> Council for
> vote in its scheduled meeting April 17, 2008.
>
> 4. It is the intention of the GNSO for the Staff to produce a Board
> Report on this PDP for consideration by the ICANN Board, in the hope  
> that
> the Board may vote on any recommendations of the GNSO with respect  
> to this
> PDP, at the scheduled ICANN meeting in Paris in June, 2008
>
> <insert text of DNT DT motion>
>
> a.
>
>
> On 5 Mar 2008, at 10:14, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>
>> The Staff and Counsel may have stated the
>> opinion that tasting was within scope, but that doesn't mean that  
>> every
>> element of any policy proposal we come up is viable under current
>> contracts. That's all we're saying. If the Council does send  
>> something
>> to the Board it just seems reasonable that if there is a question  
>> about
>> it actually being implementable that we first try to resolve that.
>
>