<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial>
Thanks Adrian. Maybe I interpreted too precisely. Regardless, it still seems that we only need to act on Mike' s motion. <br><br>Chuck<br></font></p>
<p><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
<font face=Tahoma size=2>
<b>From</b>: Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au>
<br><b>To</b>: Gomes, Chuck
<br><b>Cc</b>: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>
<br><b>Sent</b>: Fri Jan 22 16:51:51 2010<br><b>Subject</b>: Re: [council] Motions re. Vertical Integration PDP
<br></font></p>
<div>Just to be clear chuck, stephane's motion is indeed to initiate a PDP. Just not right now.... It was a motion only to defer not eliminate.</div><div><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On 23/01/2010, at 5:16, "Gomes, Chuck" <<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"><span class="155571616-22012010">Note that there are
two competing motions regarding whether or not a PDP should be initiated
regarding vertical integration of registries and registrars for new
gTLDs, one made by Stephane and seconded by Adrian and one made by
Mike and seconded by Debbie (see <a href="https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?28_january_2010_motions"><a href="https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?28_january_2010_motions">https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?28_january_2010_motions</a></a>).
After careful analysis and some consultation with others, I have come to the
conclusion that the only motion we need to consider is Mike's motion to initiate
a PDP. My rationale is as follows:</span></font></div>
<ul>
<li><font face="Arial" size="2"><span class="155571616-22012010">If we dealt with
Stephane's motion to not initiate a PDP first, even if it passed, we would
still have to act on the other motion and I think it is theoretically
possible that both motions could pass.</span></font></li>
<li><font face="Arial" size="2"><span class="155571616-22012010">Whether Mike's
motion passes or not, there would be no need to vote on Stephane's
motion, thereby making Stephane's motion unnecessary; a failure of Mike's
motion would have the same effect as passing Stephane's motion and passage of
Mike's motion would override passage of Stephane's motion because we have
specifically defined voting thresholds for initiating a PDP, which I do not
believe we could ignore.</span></font></li></ul>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"><span class="155571616-22012010">If anyone disagrees
with my reasoning, please speak up. </span></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"><span class="155571616-22012010"></span></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"><span class="155571616-22012010">Stephane, if
my logic is valid, you may want to consider withdrawing your motion, but I will
leave that to you and Adrian, who seconded it.</span></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"><span class="155571616-22012010"></span></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"><span class="155571616-22012010">Whatever we decide,
</span></font><font face="Arial" size="2"><span class="155571616-22012010">Stephane's
motion would require a majority of each house and Mike's would require
either 33% of each house or 66% of one house. </span></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"><span class="155571616-22012010"></span></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"><span class="155571616-22012010">Chuck</span></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"><span class="155571616-22012010"></span></font> </div>
</div></blockquote></body></html>