Milton L Mueller wrote:
>Any one but us vote against it (new gTLD proposal)?
>
>
No. Cyril Chua abstained on the vote though (and 3 others were absent
including Ross Rader). The detailed talley is below.
>On Whois, what was the fate of the Rader proposal?
>
>
There was a flurry of proposals, withdrawals, and amendments at the last
minute. So I'm not sure which proposal you are referring to. Ross
withdrew a whois proposal on the condition that the BC withdrew it's
whois proposal. So those were withdrawn. But Ross had an amendment to
the proposal for the schedule for completing whois, and that passed.
The schedule is at the very end below.
Robin
>Milton Mueller, Professor
>Syracuse University
>School of Information Studies
>------------------------------
>Internet Governance Project:
>http://internetgovernance.org
>------------------------------
>The Convergence Center:
>http://www.digitalconvergence.org
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Non-Commercial User Constituency
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
>Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 2:29 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [Fwd: [council] Link to Resolutions passed by
>the GNSO Council]
>
>FYI: 3 Resolutions passed on yesterday's GNSO Council meeting.
>
>1. The New GTLD Report and its recommendations were approved by a super
>majority (unfortunately).
>2. The GA list rules were approved.
>3. Schedule for competing Whois work set.
>
>Thanks to all who sent in comments on the New GTLD Report during the
>public comment period. Let's hope the ICANN Board gives them the
>consideration that the GNSO Policy Council did not.
>
>Robin
>
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: [council] Link to Resolutions passed by the GNSO Council
>Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 07:28:57 +0200
>From: [log in to unmask]
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: 'Council GNSO' <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>Dear Council members,
>
>Below is a link to the resolutions passed by the Council at the meeting
>yesterday, 6 September, 2007, ahead of the complete minutes.
>
>http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/resolutions-gnso-06sep07.shtml
>
>
>
>*GNSO Council Resolutions *
>
>*GNSO Council Teleconference*
>Agenda <http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-06sep07.shtml>
>http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-06sep07.shtml
>
>*6 September 2007 *
>
>*Resolution 1.*
>
>The GNSO Council supports the 20 recommendations, as a whole, as set out
>
>in the Final Report of the ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organisation
>on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains
><http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm>
>http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm
>going forward to the ICANN Board.
>
>*Vote in favour:*
>Mike Rodenbaugh, Bilal Beiram, Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette, Tony
>Harris, Greg Ruth, Avri Doria, Jon Bing, Sophia Bekele (each holding one
>
>vote),
>Tom Keller, Adrian Kinderis, Cary Karp, Edmon Chung, Chuck Gomes (each
>holding 2 votes)
>Total number of votes in favour 19
>
>*Vote against:*
>Robin Gross
>
>*Abstain:*
>Cyril Chua, Norbert Klein, Mawaki Chango
>
>Council members absent who did not vote: Philip Sheppard, Tony Holmes,
>Ross Rader.
>
>The motion carried with a supermajority vote as defined in the ICANN
>bylaws, section 16
>http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm#AnnexA
>
>*Resolution 2
>
>*Whereas the GA list sent a request to the GNSO council for approval of
>its new list rules,
>
>and whereas
>/"the GNSO Council is responsible for managing open forums, in the form
>of mailing lists,"/
>http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm#X
>and the GA list is one such open forum,
>
>Resolved:
>The GNSO chair will send a message to the GA List stating the following:
>
>The GNSO council acknowledges the GA List's charter request and thanks
>the participants for consulting with the GNSO council on this issue.
>
>Given the Council's by-law responsibilities for the moderation of the GA
>
>list, the Council encourages the GA
>List's movement toward self moderation and supports the GA List in
>implementing the mailing list rules
>(found at http://www.geolang.com/draftGAListRules5.htm)
>indicated in Section 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 with the following exception in
>section 2:
>
>The Announce list is and should remain solely for the sole use of the
>GNSO Secretariat for notifying the subscribers of GNSO and other ICANN
>informational items.
>
>With regard to the organizational sections of the charter, specifically
>sections 6, 8, and 9, the GNSO council accepts that members
>participating on the list are free to determine their own organizational
>
>structure, with the following exceptions in section 8 on elections:
>
>An election is usually held near the end of the term of office for the
>chair of the General Assembly. The exact time is decided by the outgoing
>
>Chair and the Chair of the GNSO.
>
>The GNSO council, and its chair, cannot accept any responsibility for
>the internal governance of an organizational movement on the GA List at
>this time and restricts the council's actions to issues concerning the
>moderation of the GA List as determined by the by-laws.
>
>Please note that the members of the GA list can only speak for the GA
>list and not for ICANN, the GNSO, its Council or its constituencies.
>
>
>*Resolution 3
>
>*Whereas the Whois WG has now completed its work,
>
>Therefore:
>
>The GNSO Council accepts the Final Outcomes Report of the Working Group
>2007
>http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-whois-wg-report-final-1-9.pdf
>and appreciates the efforts made by WG participants and ICANN staff in
>preparing this report.
>
>Further, the GNSO council:
>
>a) graciously thanks all of the volunteers, consultants, staff and
>others who have participated in the Task Force and Working Group.
>
>b) makes no specific policy recommendation to the ICANN board at this
>time concerning Whois or related policy.
>
>c) requests ICANN Staff proceed with a study of gTLD registrations and
>registrants and how Whois data is used and misused as described in the
>GAC Principles Regarding gTLD WHOIS Service paragraph 4.2
><http://gac.icann.org/web/home/WHOIS_principles.pdf>,
>http://gac.icann.org/web/home/WHOIS_principles.pdf
>and by the Working Group Final Outcomes Report.
><http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-whois-wg-report-final-1-9.pdf>
>http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-whois-wg-report-final-1-9.pdf
>This study should include a review and analysis of the different proxy
>services available today and a summary of any other statistical studies
>that Staff can locate. We ask staff to report back to the Council on the
>
>'study to date' by October 4.
>
>d) requests an update on the WHOIS Data Accuracy Program outlined by
>ICANN Staff on April 27th, including any statistical information that
>can be summarized thus far.
>See http://www.icann.org/whois/whois-data-accuracy-program-27apr07.pdf.
>
>e) requests an update on the pending SSAC study on "Information
>Gathering Using Domain Name Registration Records" outlined in September,
>
>2006.
>See
>http://www.icann.org/committees/security/information-gathering-28Sep2006
>.pdf
>
>f) shall review any additional factual information, in conjunction with
>the policy suggestions from the Task Force and Working Group reports,
>complete this work on Whois, and make a report to the ICANN community
>and to the ICANN Board, as follows:
>
>1 - Staff will produce a Draft Final Report that references the Task
>Force report, the WG charter and the WG report and which includes an
>overall description of the process by September 13, 2007. This overview
>should include the text of motions to be voted on at the end of this
>process.
>
>2 - This report will be sent out for Constituency Statement Review on
>September 13, 2007.
>Constituencies will be asked to follow the by-laws on constituency
>statements.
>http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm#AnnexA
>Section 7 d. Collection of Information.
>Specifically
>
>/"1. Constituency Statements. The Representatives will each be
>responsible for soliciting the position of their constituencies, at a
>minimum, and other comments as each Representative deems appropriate,
>regarding the issue under consideration. This position and other
>comments, as applicable, should be submitted in a formal statement to
>the task force chair (sic) (each, a "Constituency Statement") within
>thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP (sic). Every
>Constituency Statement shall include at least the following:/
>
>/ (i) If a Supermajority Vote was reached, a clear statement of the
>constituency's position on the issue;/
>
>/ (ii) If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear statement of all
>
>positions espoused by constituency members;/
>
>/ (iii) A clear statement of how the constituency arrived at its
>position(s). Specifically, the statement should detail specific
>constituency meetings, teleconferences, or other means of deliberating
>an issue, and a list of all members who participated or otherwise
>submitted their views;/
>
>/ (iv) An analysis of how the issue would affect the constituency,
>including any financial impact on the constituency; and/
>
>/ (v) An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary
>to implement the policy."/
>
> **Final Date for updated constituency statement: October 4, 2007
>
>3 - Staff will Incorporate Constituency comments and any additional
>factual information into Final Report by October 11, 2007
>
>4 - Staff is requested to produce staff implementation notes by October
>15, 2007.
>
>5 - Community Public Comment on Final Report: October 15 - 31 , 2007.
>
>6 - A Public and Council Discussion will be held during the Los Angeles
>Public Meeting.
>
>7 - Final vote during the Los Angeles public GNSO Council meeting.
>
>
|
