Re: [gnso-dt-wg] Rework of motion
Hi, Two quick comments:- The issue of whether this would or would not be a consensus policy is one for legal counsel. I can certainly check with legal counsel to find out the status of a decision according to 13f.
- We are already in a PDP. As opposed to trying to begin yet another PDP, I would would think a suggestion for an open WG to come up with a solution that could get a supermajority would be a more feasible route. Assuming others in the DT and the council, agree with you. If this is the path the DT suggests, it would be good for the DT to propose the charter and timings.
a. On 22 Feb 2008, at 13:45, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
A couple of notes:1. A majority of the Council as opposed to Supermajority is not "deemedto reflect the view of the Council". See Section 12. 2. Yes, the Board can act, but again, that Board decision, in my view (and in the view of the other registries) would not be binding on the gTLD Registry Operators because that would not be viewed as "consensusof Internet stakeholders". After all, if a majority is not even deemedto reflect the view of the Council, then how can it represent a Consensus of Internet stakeholder. 3. The reason I am using the phrase "consensus of Internet stakeholders" is because that is the phrase that is used in the gTLDcontracts. See below which is taken from Section 3.1(b)(iv) of the .comagreement (Seehttp://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-com-01mar06 .htm) which states:"Consensus Policies and the procedures by which they are developed shall be designed to produce, to the extent possible, a consensus of Internetstakeholders, including the operators of gTLDs. Consensus Policies shall relate to one or more of the following: (1) issues for whichuniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate interoperability, Security and/or Stability of the Internet or DNS; (2) functional and performance specifications for the provision of RegistryServices (as defined in Section 3.1(d)(iii) below); (3) Security and Stability of the registry database for the TLD; (4) registry policies reasonably necessary to implement Consensus Policies relating to registry operations or registrars; or (5) resolution of disputes regarding the registration of domain names (as opposed to the use of such domain names). Such categories of issues referred to in the preceding sentence shall include, without limitation:Particularly important is the phrase "including the operators of gTLDs".Now before you try to argue that it is modified by the phrase "to the extent possible", let me state that the following:1. "To the extent possible" does not mean that if the registries are onthe losing side of the vote it is not "possible" to achieve gTLD operator support for a proposal on domain tasting.2. The gTLD Registries have indicated on a number of occassions that wedo believe a proposal to eliminate tasting (in TLDs where tasting has occurred) can garner the registry operators support. We are committed to working with you to achieve that. We just need to find a solutionthat takes into consideration the differences of each of the registries.Now if we are done talking about process, lets get down to business: 1. There is a proposed solution on the table; namely I believe the NeuStar/Afilias proposal (which by the way should be officially posted for public comment today). 2. My recommendation is to take those proposals, get the GNSO Council to initiate a PDP, and launch a Task Force (or Working Group) open to the community whose sole purpose and charter is to study the implications of this proposal. I would gladly help ICANN staff in the drafting of that charter. 3. We follow the strict timing in the Bylaws on the formation of theTask Force/Working Group, elect a chair, and get constituency statements getting them to focus solely on the proposal. This should be very easy,quick and painless. 4. Have a Task Force report that analyzes the constituency statementsand public input and modifies the proposal (if necessary). Put that outfor comment and draft the final report (all included in the Bylaws).If we follow the strict timing in the Bylaws, which I believe we can, we can have this done, wrapped up and to the Board within 90 days and stillbefore the Paris meeting. This will require some diligent efforts, but let's show that this is possible. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & Business Development NeuStar, Inc. e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx -----Original Message-----From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] OnBehalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 12:15 PM To: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [gnso-dt-wg] Rework of motion On 22 Feb 2008, at 11:41, Rosette, Kristina wrote:eff, good question. I'd appreciate clarification of that, too, to make sure we're all on the same page. The transcripts of the GNSO Council meeting and Thursday wrap-up are far from crystal clear. As for your other point, I had understood that the bylaws do not require supermajority support of Council before Board can vote. If there'slanguage elsewhere that controls, I'd appreciate if you would point mein the right direction so that I'm working from the same baseline.Hi, As I read the by-laws, appended below, the Council does not need to achieve a supermajority in order to forward on a decision (note 11b). A non supermajority view, though, is treated differently by the board (13b vs. 13f). In terms of this DT, the purpose is still to present a way forward for the council to discuss. That can be a motion, a motion plus update of constituency statements, or a WG charter. The motion can be based on the reworked version Alan has presented, or another motion all together, e.g. the elimination of a required AGP as was suggested by many of the comments or some other motion. I think it is best if the way forward leads to a supermajority position. If we can't get a motion that would be able to garner supermajority support, then perhaps we need to do more work and a WG charter might be the right way forward. a. from the by-laws ----------------------- 11. Council Report to the Board The Staff Manager will be present at the final meeting of the Council, and will have five (5) calendar days after the meeting to incorporate the views of the Council into a report to be submitted to the Board (the "Board Report"). The Board Report must contain at least the following: a. A clear statement of any Supermajority Vote recommendation of the Council; b. If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear statement of all positions held by Council members. Each statement should clearly indicate (i) the reasons underlying each position and (ii) the constituency(ies) that held the position; c. An analysis of how the issue would affect each constituency, including any financial impact on the constituency; d. An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary to implement the policy; e. The advice of any outside advisors relied upon, which should be accompanied by a detailed statement of the advisor's (i) qualifications and relevant experience; and (ii) potential conflicts of interest; f. The Final Report submitted to the Council; and g. A copy of the minutes of the Council deliberation on the policy issue, including the all opinions expressed during such deliberation, accompanied by a description of who expressed such opinions. 12. Agreement of the Council A Supermajority Vote of the Council members will be deemed to reflect the view of the Council, and may be conveyed to the Board as the Council's recommendation. Abstentions shall not be permitted; thus all Council members must cast a vote unless they identify a financial interest in the outcome of the policy issue. Notwithstanding the foregoing, as set forth above, all viewpoints expressed by Council members during the PDP must be included in the Board Report. 13. Board Vote a. The Board will meet to discuss the GNSO Council recommendation as soon as feasible after receipt of the Board Report from the Staff Manager. b. In the event that the Council reached a Supermajority Vote, the Board shall adopt the policy according to the Council Supermajority Vote recommendation unless by a vote of more than sixty- six (66%) percent of the Board determines that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. c. In the event that the Board determines not to act in accordance with the Council Supermajority Vote recommendation, the Board shall (i) articulate the reasons for its determination in a report to the Council (the "Board Statement"); and (ii) submit the Board Statement to the Council. d. The Council shall review the Board Statement for discussion with the Board within twenty (20) calendar days after the Council's receipt of the Board Statement. The Board shall determine the method (e.g., by teleconference, e-mail, or otherwise) by which the Council and Board will discuss the Board Statement. e. At the conclusion of the Council and Board discussions, the Council shall meet to affirm or modify its recommendation, and communicate that conclusion (the "Supplemental Recommendation") to the Board, including an explanation for its current recommendation. In the event that the Council is able to reach a Supermajority Vote on the Supplemental Recommendation, the Board shall adopt the recommendation unless more than sixty-six (66%) percent of the Board determines that such policy is not in the interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. f. In any case in which the Council is not able to reach Supermajority, a majority vote of the Board will be sufficient to act. g. When a final decision on a GNSO Council Recommendation or Supplemental Recommendation is timely, the Board shall take a preliminary vote and, where practicable, will publish a tentative decision that allows for a ten (10) day period of public comment prior to a final decision by the Board.