<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.0.6249.1">
<TITLE>RE: [council] Compromise motion on Verisign</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV>Lucy and I are fine with the wording put forward this morning by
Philip.</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT size=2>-------- Message d'origine-------- <BR><B>De:</B> Marilyn
Cade [mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com] <BR><B>Date:</B> ven. 12/2/2005 8:10
<BR><B>À:</B> 'Norbert Klein'; 'Bret Fausett' <BR><B>Cc:</B> council@icann.org
<BR><B>Objet:</B> RE: [council] Compromise motion on
Verisign<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<P><FONT size=2> I think that Council needs to give some guidance on this
issue. I think we<BR>made a very good step forward when the Board committed to
consultant ion,<BR>and that consultation has begun. There are many
consistencies in the<BR>statement n s of all the Constituencies and in
the ALAC. And the need to<BR>undertake policy development seems a
consistency,<BR><BR>Council should tell the Board clearly of the consistencies
that we see in<BR>the comments, I believe.<BR><BR>In all constituencies
yesterday, I am told, Board members stated the need<BR>for clear guidance. I
also heard this from a few Board members. In the last<BR>public meeting in
Luxembourg, we heard from one or two Board members ,<BR>seated in the
public forum, that they thought that the statements made from<BR>the
constituencies from the floor in the public forum were "merely
the<BR>statements of a few individuals". <BR><BR>I think we have to take
seriously how we can advance our ability to respond<BR>to the situations that
face us when we walk into an ICANN meeting and<BR>decisions are going to be
made, or not made, by the board on items of urgent<BR>concern or with
significant policy implications.<BR><BR>We have to be able to develop and take
a resolution approach while at an<BR>ICANN meeting, and that is a topic we
need to grapple with administratively<BR>going forward.<BR>For this meeting,
the BC proposed a resolution that all constituencies had a<BR>full day and had
constituency meetings scheduled when they could discuss the<BR>issue and
approach.<BR><BR>Philip has suggested some modifications to the resolution to
simplify it.<BR>So, two points:<BR><BR>We should provide a summary of the
consistencies from our meeting.<BR>Secondly, we should present a resolution
supporting a delay, and noting our<BR>policy work which has to be completed to
advise the .com assignment process.<BR><BR>I think it is fair for the Board to
expect the gNSO policy council to be<BR>able to provide a resolution that has
majority support.<BR><BR> <BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From:
owner-council@gnso.icann.org [<A
href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org</A>]
On<BR>Behalf Of Norbert Klein<BR>Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 12:22
PM<BR>To: Bret Fausett<BR>Cc: council@icann.org<BR>Subject: Re: [council]
Compromise motion on Verisign<BR><BR>Bret Fausett wrote:<BR><BR>> My
understanding is that the Board already pledged not to sign<BR>> anything
until 2006. Perhaps we want to put a date on the request. In<BR>> other
words, change the resolution clause to read: "That the ICANN<BR>> Board
should postpone adoption of the proposed settlement _until the<BR>> next
meeting in Wellington, New Zealand_, while the Council fully<BR>>
investigates the policy issues raised by the proposed changes _and<BR>>
reports to the Board on its
findings_."<BR>><BR>>
Bret<BR><BR>I heard the same "rumor" - but was there a Board meeting deciding
this?<BR><BR><BR>Norbert<BR><BR></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>