[council] RE : [council] Compromise motion on Verisign

[Niklas_Lagergren at mpaa.org]

Lucy and I are fine with the wording put forward this morning by Philip.

	-------- Message d'origine-------- 
	De: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com] 
	Date: ven. 12/2/2005 8:10 
	À: 'Norbert Klein'; 'Bret Fausett' 
	Cc: council at icann.org 
	Objet: RE: [council] Compromise motion on Verisign
	
	

	 I think that Council needs to give some guidance on this issue. I think we
	made a very good step forward when the Board committed to consultant ion,
	and that consultation has begun. There are many consistencies in the
	statement  n s of all the Constituencies and in the ALAC. And the need to
	undertake policy development seems a consistency,
	
	Council should tell the Board clearly of the consistencies that we see in
	the comments, I believe.
	
	In all constituencies yesterday, I am told, Board members stated the need
	for clear guidance. I also heard this from a few Board members. In the last
	public meeting in Luxembourg, we heard from one or two Board members  ,
	seated in the public forum, that they thought that the statements made from
	the constituencies from the floor in the public forum were "merely the
	statements of a few individuals". 
	
	I think we have to take seriously how we can advance our ability to respond
	to the situations that face us when we walk into an ICANN meeting and
	decisions are going to be made, or not made, by the board on items of urgent
	concern or with significant policy implications.
	
	We have to be able to develop and take a resolution approach while at an
	ICANN meeting, and that is a topic we need to grapple with administratively
	going forward.
	For this meeting, the BC proposed a resolution that all constituencies had a
	full day and had constituency meetings scheduled when they could discuss the
	issue and approach.
	
	Philip has suggested some modifications to the resolution to simplify it.
	So, two points:
	
	We should provide a summary of the consistencies from our meeting.
	Secondly, we should present a resolution supporting a delay, and noting our
	policy work which has to be completed to advise the .com assignment process.
	
	I think it is fair for the Board to expect the gNSO policy council to be
	able to provide a resolution that has majority support.
	
	 
	
	-----Original Message-----
	From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
	Behalf Of Norbert Klein
	Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 12:22 PM
	To: Bret Fausett
	Cc: council at icann.org
	Subject: Re: [council] Compromise motion on Verisign
	
	Bret Fausett wrote:
	
	> My understanding is that the Board already pledged not to sign
	> anything until 2006. Perhaps we want to put a date on the request. In
	> other words, change the resolution clause to read: "That the ICANN
	> Board should postpone adoption of the proposed settlement _until the
	> next meeting in Wellington, New Zealand_, while the Council fully
	> investigates the policy issues raised by the proposed changes _and
	> reports to the Board on its findings_."
	>
	>        Bret
	
	I heard the same "rumor" - but was there a Board meeting deciding this?
	
	
	Norbert
	
	

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20051202/1ee9f50b/attachment.html>