Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Statement on Domain Tasting and Domain Monetization - V. 1.3
May I just add to this excellent and concise statement of the situation the following points:
1) I caused a document to be prepared some weeks ago, posted then in English, that provides an overview of the GNSO and the PDP process, which was then translated into Spanish, Brazilian Portuguese, and French.
I really encourage everyone in the community to revew this - it isn't very long but should give you a solid background in the process which is very important considering that At-Large is now spearheading a PDP-launching effort.
These documents have been announced on the front page of www.icann.org yesterday, and can also be reached at:
https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?lisbon_documents
2) The Bylaws of ICANN, which contain the enire process as well as the above document, can be found at:
http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm. The PDP Process can be found at:
http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA
3) The GNSO definition of what should be in an issues report can be found at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-19feb04.shtml
On 29/03/07, Alan Greenberg <
alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:If I remember correctly, in the Mar 6 meeting, I asked for
confirmation of whether the document that we had received was in fact
an "Issues Report". The answer we received a few days later was that
it did not meet the criteria of a Bylaw-specified issues report.
Perhaps we should look into why we previously understood that the was
a formal issues report, but that will not help the present process.
According to the Bylaws, the way that the ALAC can trigger a Policy
Development Process (PDP) is to formally request an Issues Report
from ICANN staff. This issues report must be delivered within 15
days. The report can them be presented to the GNSO and the GNSO must
vote on whether to start a PDP within 15 days of receipt of the
Issues Report. Assuming that ICANN staff agree that this is indeed an
ICANN "policy" issue, a 33% vote by the GNSO triggers a PDP. If staff
does not agree that it is a policy issue, it requires a 66% vote of
the GNSO to trigger a PDP. The Issues Report can also be submitted to
the Board which, if it chooses, can vote to direct the GNSO to
initiate a PDP (for this entire process, see
http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA).
As of the meeting in Lisbon, the ALAC has passed a motion to submit a
request for an Issues Report to staff no later than 30 April 2007.
The request was delayed to allow us to solicit support from the GNSO
constituencies and to allow us to formulate the request to maximize
the issue being classed as a "policy issue".
We already have the support of several GNSO constituencies and we
will work with them to formulate the request for an Issues Report.
If we are successful, we should have a PDP initiated at the no later
than the San Juan meeting.
Alan
At 28/03/2007 02:15 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
>The March 6 vote puts us further into the process. We should call what
>we already received from staff an Issues Report and forward this
>statement to the GNSO Council at this meeting to start the PDP.
>
>--Wendy
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org
www.icannalac.org
--
--
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart
PO Box 32160
London N4 2XY
United Kingdom
UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011
USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460
Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135
mobile: +44 (7774) 932798
Win IM:
ashtonhart@xxxxxxxxxxx
/ AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@xxxxxxx / Skype: nashtonhart
Online Bio:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org
www.icannalac.org