Re: [gnso-dow123] Final Task Force Report on Whois Services

["Jordyn Buchanan" <jordyn.buchanan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Actually, in the interest of moving the process along, I'm going to
simply declare:

1) Other than the issue of the position of various recommendations in
the report, we've received no commentary about the contents of the
report over the past 24 hours.  I'm also disregarding Milton's point
regarding the registry position as David Maher has confirmed that the
language in the report correctly reflects the registries' position.

2) As to the position of various sections in the report:  As discussed
on our last call, Maria and I were to discuss this issue with ICANN's
legal staff and make the best determination on where to position the
Special Circumstances proposal based on that advice.  We've done so,
and I don't think further discussion of this topic is going to be
productive.

For the record, the reason that the Special Circumstances proposal is
in the body of the report and that other recommendations are not is
that the Special Circumstances proposal represents the view of the
constituences that are opposed to the OPOC proposal.  The bylaws
provide for the report to provide such positions, and so we've
included the proposal in the body of the report.  I understand that
others may interpret the bylaws differently, but the current structure
reflects our best judgment at this time.

Therefore, I'd like to open up voting on the report.  Each of the
voting representatives listed in the report (this list was also
seprately e-mailed around by Maria) should now send me, Maria and Glen
(and feel free to copy this mailing list) an indication of whether or
not you support the policy reccomendations contained in the report.
THIS IS NOT A VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT TO SEND THE REPORT TO THE
COUNCIL.  That will happen automatically regardless of what you vote.
This is a vote on the merits of the policy recommendations.

Please let me know if you have any questions on this topic.  We'll
re-send the call to vote under a separate cover in case anyone has
become bored with this thread and isn't paying attention to it.

Voting will end at the end of the day on Friday.

Jordyn

Jordyn

On 3/7/07, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Milton,
>
> This may seem like a non-sequitur, but in the absence of any guidance from
> the Bylaws, I have to go with the previously stated view of the task force
> about the relative time allotted to the proposals. A clear decision was made
> to treat the two sets of proposals differently,no task force member objected
> then or since, and I reflected that decision in the structure of the report.
> I agree that this is an imperfect mechanism, but I do not expect that a task
> force straw poll on this issue would yield a different result.
>
> Unless the task force is likely to collectively change its approach on this
> within the next hours, then I do not believe that further delay would be
> worthwhile.
>
> If I do not see on this list a majority of task force members who wish to
> change the report again, then I will instruct Glen to commence the Task
> Force vote tomorrow morning, 0900 CET.
>
> As the three days alotted for voting would include non-working days (i.e.
> Thursday, Friday and Saturday), the vote will finish on Monday, 12 March at
> 1700 CET.
>
> If, on the other hand, a majority of task force members do wish to change
> the report, I would suggest that the task force reconvene in conference call
> to decide how the report sections should be ordered. I will be happy to
> facilitate such a call.
>
> All the best, Maria
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 10:54 PM
> To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Maria Farrell
> Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Final Task Force Report on Whois Services
>
> >>> "Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> 3/6/2007 1:32 PM >>>
> >FYI, below is the agreed Task Force summary of the call when the status
> >of this proposal was discussed on 18 December, 2006.
> >A distinction was made by the chair and agreed by the task force  about
> >the different status of the OPoC/Special Circumstances proposals and
> >the proposal made by Avri/Milton/Wendy and by  Marilyn.
>
> Maria, this is a complete non sequitur. We agreed "not to spend significant
> time discussing" our proposal on a specific teleconference
> -- but we did discuss it. If the "special circumstances proposal" is
> included in the main body of the report because we discussed it, then the
> others have to be included too.
>
> >From a fairness and tidyness standpoint, neither should be in the main
> body of the report.