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 >>