[council] update on IGO-INGO motion

[Mary Wong]

Hello - the redlined version is attached.

Cheers
Mary

Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong at icann.org

* One World. One Internet. *

From:  WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Reply-To:  WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Date:  Tuesday, November 19, 2013 12:16 PM
To:  "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>, 'Thomas Rickert'
<rickert at anwaelte.de>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>, Jonathan
Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
Subject:  Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion

> It would be helpful for the constituencies¹ discussion to have a redline
> version of the motion available.
> Could staff please provide it?
> 
> Thanks
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
>  
> From: Neuman, Jeff <mailto:Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:24 AM
> To: 'Thomas Rickert' <mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>  ; GNSO Council List
> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>  ; Jonathan Robinson
> <mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
> Subject: RE: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
>  
> Thomas,
>  
> Thanks for this.  Just for clarification, are you asking this to be considered
> by the maker of the motion as a friendly amendment?
>  
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Registry Services
>  
> 
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
> Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:12 AM
> 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 herehttp://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/council/attachments/20131119/7c8d5a06/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: REDLINE MOTION 19 November.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 46130 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20131119/7c8d5a06/REDLINEMOTION19November.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5033 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20131119/7c8d5a06/smime.p7s>