[bc-gnso] Update on IGO-INGO motion

Tue Nov 19 14:29:37 UTC 2013

Dear BC Members,

Please find below and attached, updates to the IGO-INGO motion submitted by
Thomas Rickert.

Kind Regards,

Benedetta Rossi

BC Secretariat

bc-secretariat at icann.org

https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home

www.bizconst.org

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
Sent: mardi 19 novembre 2013 15:12
To: GNSO Council List; Jonathan Robinson
Subject: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion

Dear Councilors, 

In view of the discussion in and feedback from the GNSO's Working Session on
Saturday, I've asked ICANN staff to create some additional materials that I
hope will be useful during your discussions of the IGO-INGO motion with your
respective constituencies and stakeholder groups on Tuesday. ICANN staff has
also consulted with ICANN's legal department regarding the questions that
were raised about voting thresholds and Consensus Policies. 

Voting Thresholds 

The voting thresholds for PDP recommendations to be adopted are set out in
the ICANN Bylaws here <http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X>
http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X.

As you can see, approving a PDP recommendation requires at a minimum:

'an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that
one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder
Groups supports the Recommendation'.

It should be noted though that depending on whether a supermajority vote is
achieved on a recommendation, the voting threshold needed for the ICANN
Board to determine that such policy is not in the best interests of the
ICANN community or ICANN differs (i.e. if supermajority is achieved, it
requires more than a 2/3 vote of the Board, while if no supermajority is
achieved, a majority vote of the Board would be sufficient) -
<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>
http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA. 

Furthermore, if a supermajority threshold is achieved, the certainty of
implementing some or parts of some of the recommendations as Consensus
Policy may be more clear, but further determinations would need to be made
in relation to each of the adopted recommendations as part of the
implementation process to determine what would be the most effective /
efficient way of implementation. If a supermajority threshold is not
achieved, alternative mechanisms can be considered to implement the
recommendations.

Finally, to approve an Issue Report, what is required is a quarter of each
House or a majority of one House.

Structure of the motion

After consultation with Jonathan, I suggest the Council should vote on the
second alternative of what was Recommendation 5, which is why we could
delete the first alternative from the draft motion. 

One additional thing I'd like to suggest is that, instead of considering the
request to the SCI (to review consensus levels in the WG Guidelines) as part
of the motion, the Council take up that item as part of our Consent Agenda
during the Wednesday meeting. Jonathan - this item is for your attention and
action; will you grant the request?

Attached to this email are the following: 

(1) A renumbered IGO-INGO motion: 

*	Renumbered such that the former Resolved Clause 5 (which contains
the language pertaining to those recommendations that received Strong
Support but Significant Opposition) is now moved to the end of the motion
and the two alternative wordings highlighted in yellow- with the result that
all the preceding Resolved clauses now contain only the WG's Consensus
recommendations.  
*	All Consensus recommendations are marked with two red **s; those
receiving Strong Support but Significant Opposition (now contained in the
last Resolved clause with the renumbering (new clause 8)) are marked with
three blue ###s.
*	The word "and" has been underlined in the new clause 8, in the
bullet point concerning IGO acronyms entering the TM Clearinghouse
(currently Strong Support but Significant Opposition) - to emphasize the
fact that at the moment there is no WG consensus on whether IGO acronyms
should enter the TMCH for second-level protections (there is already
Consensus that these acronyms will not receive top level protection).
*	The former Resolved Clause 7 (referring to the SCI review of the WG
Guidelines) has been removed - to be moved to the Council's Consent Agenda
if approved.
*	No substantive, language or any other editing changes have been made
to the motion - this is otherwise the same motion that was sent on 10
November and discussed over the weekend.

(2) A list of the exact identifiers referred to in the WG report and the
motion for each group of organizations (RCRC, IOC, IGOs and INGOs other than
the RCRC/IOC).

Hopefully these supplementary materials will assist in further constructive
discussions on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Thanks,

Thomas

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20131119/666af910/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGO-INGO_Identifier_List.ppt
Type: application/vnd.ms-powerpoint
Size: 1040896 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20131119/666af910/IGO-INGO_Identifier_List.ppt>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20131119/666af910/Untitledattachment00385.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CLEAN Renumbered IGO INGO motion 19 Nov 2013.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 78848 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20131119/666af910/CLEANRenumberedIGOINGOmotion19Nov2013.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20131119/666af910/Untitledattachment00388.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20131119/666af910/signature.asc>