[council] Re: 2 questions about our Council agenda

Tue Apr 10 17:45:15 UTC 2012

 Of course.  I am in a fog

-----Original Message-----
From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>
To: john <john at crediblecontext.com>
Cc: Neuman Jeff <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <KnobenW at telekom.de>; council at gnso.icann.org GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>
Sent: Tue, Apr 10, 2012 10:24 am
Subject: Re: [council] Re: 2 questions about our Council agenda

Vice Chair

Stéphane

Le 10 avr. 2012 à 19:14, <john at crediblecontext.com> a écrit :

Stephane,

In this context, what is a VC?

John Berard
Founder
Credible Context
58 West Portal Avenue, #291
San Francisco, CA 94127
m: 415.845.4388

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] Re: 2 questions about our Council agenda
From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>
Date: Tue, April 10, 2012 8:51 am
To: <john at crediblecontext.com>
Cc: Neuman Jeff <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>,        Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
<KnobenW at telekom.de>,        "<council at gnso.icann.org> GNSO"
<council at gnso.icann.org>

John,

Thanks for your questions. I am copying the Council list.

On item 3, that is a discussion for the meeting itself. This agenda item stems from the Council's decision, taken in CR, to delay on this PDP. We are acting on that decision.

On item 5, this was proposed by one of the VCs. It is a question being asked. Once again, I would suggest that we not preempt the very discussion we are trying to have by starting it now, but instead have it during the call. If there is no topic here, then that is what our minutes for the meeting will say and we can all move on. But the Council may welcome the chance to discuss this.

Stéphane

Le 10 avr. 2012 à 17:40, <john at crediblecontext.com> a écrit :

Gentlemen,

With regard to:

Item 3: Thick Whois Policy Development Process (PDP)10 minutes)
 The GNSO Council initiated a PDP at its meeting on 14 March. However, considering other circumstances, the GNSO Council is of the view that the next steps in this PDP (formation of a drafting team to develop a charter) is not timely and that it may be preferable to delay until the .COM negotiations have been completed. This motion provides for that delay. 

The BC argued that the motion would muddy the waters with regard to the RAA negotiations, but we were unconvincing.  How does this conflate with the .com contract now?  When did that happen?

With regard to:

Item 5: GNSO Council comment on .COM contract renewal (10 minutes) 

In its announcement on the .COM contract renewal dated 27 March 2012 (http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-27mar12-en.htm) ICANN states that the question of transitioning a large existing registry to thick WHOIS has been recognised by the GNSO as raising operational and other issues that require further discussion and consideration (http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-27mar12-en.htm). 

 So Council discussions are being cited as the rationale for the fact that the 2012 .COM contract contains no obligations on the registry operator to switch to a thick WHOIS format. Considering the debate that went on at Council level on this issue, the Council may deem this to be a misrepresentation of the truth. If so, the Council may then wish to draft a statement outlining this and direct the Chair to send it to the Board. 

How did this get on the agenda?  Are we responding in a fit of pique?  It seems we are leapfrogging the public comment period.

Cheers,

John Berard
Founder
Credible Context
58 West Portal Avenue, #291
San Francisco, CA 94127
m: 415.845.4388

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20120410/02280408/attachment.html>