I forgot to mention the 3rd reason for why the council decided to wait 2 
weeks on the vote:  to receive input on the just-issued report from the 
public during the open meeting in LA.

 Robin


Robin Gross wrote:

> There were two main reasons for the two-week postponement.  First, the 
> report only came out a few days ago and some constituencies (like 
> Registry) wanted to have internal constituency discussions on it 
> before voting for or against its recommendation to launch a PDP.  
> Also, some key data is still missing from the analysis.  Questions had 
> been posed by Council to ICANN staff several weeks ago regarding 
> technical data and staff has yet to answer, and that data is important 
> for understanding what the problem is (i.e. enforcement of existing 
> policy or the need for new policy).  And there is other data still 
> missing, like an economic study.
>
> Is there something that will happen in the next two weeks that makes a 
> two-week postponement to complete the record superfluous?
>
>
> Danny Younger wrote:
>
>> Why was the decision made to postpone the initiation
>> of a PDP on Domain Tasting? 
>> After more than two years of suffering abuse from
>> Domain Tasting practices, and after a fact-finding WG
>> had already completed its efforts with a final report
>> having been submitted, is it so very hard for the
>> Council to decide whether policy might need to be
>> crafted to deal with this issue?
>>
>> I'm curious as to what position our councilors took on
>> this issue... did they support or reject this needless
>> delay?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --- Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>  
>>
>>> Summary of this morning's GNSO Policy Council
>>> meeting:
>>>
>>> The GNSO Council voted to post-pone it's decisions
>>> until the Open Meeting in LA on 31 October on whether to initiate
>>> PDPs on both "Domain Name Tasting" and also the issue of creating a
>>> dispute resolution process for Inter-governmental Organizations.
>>>
>>>    Intergovernmental Organization Dispute
>>> Resolution Process (IGO-DRP)
>>>  
>>>   
>>
>> http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-igo-drp-report-v2-28sep07.pdf
>>  
>>
>>>    Domain Tasting report and decision on next step
>>>  
>>>   
>>
>> http://www.gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report-final.pdf 
>>
>>  
>>
>>> ALSO, we need a volunteer from NCUC to represent us
>>> in this short term planning group regarding the Registrar Transfer
>>> Policy Plan (see below).   Any volunteers?    Ross Rader will lead
>>> this short-term planning group.
>>>
>>> Registrar Transfer Policy Plan:
>>>  On 20 September, the GNSO Council resolved:
>>>         iii). That the GNSO Council form a
>>> short-term planning group to analyse and prioritize the policy 
>>> issues raised in
>>> the report "Communication to GNSO on Policy Issues Arising from
>>> Transfer Review" before the Council further considers a PDP on any of
>>> the work discussed in the report."
>>>    Report:
>>>   
>>
>> http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/Transfer-Policy-Issues-23aug07.pdf
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>       
>> ____________________________________________________________________________________ 
>>
>> Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's 
>> updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
>> http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow   
>>