Summary of this morning's GNSO Policy Council meeting

[Robin Gross]

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 <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG> 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
>
>