<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body ><div>Hi </div><div><br></div><div>So it is correct to say that we need to, provisionally at least, approve of the amendments we are proposing.</div><div><br></div><div>I will find that hard to vote for based both on personal viewpoint and my understanding of ncsg perspectives.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div style="font-size:75%">avri</div><div style="font-size:75%"><br></div><div style="font-size:75%">Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device</div><br><br><div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> </div><div>Date:07/09/2014 3:58 PM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> </div><div>Subject: [council] Briefing Note on process for amending IGO/INGO policy recommendations </div><div><br></div>Dear all,<br><br>Attached please find a short Briefing Note outlining the process to be<br>followed by the GNSO Council in invoking Section 16 of the PDP Manual,<br>with respect to a possible modification of a GNSO policy recommendation.<br>As we noted previously, we have checked with our colleagues in the legal<br>department regarding questions such as voting thresholds, and we hope that<br>the attached note is helpful for understanding how Section 16 will work.<br><br>Please note also that we have not included the actual proposed draft<br>modifications or related motion in the Note or this email - the attached<br>Note therefore deals purely with the process issue.<br><br>Thanks and cheers<br>Mary<br><br><br><br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca><br>Date: Wednesday, July 9, 2014 at 12:50 PM<br>To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org><br>Subject: Re: [council] IGO/RCRC - NGPC letter / briefing note to GAC?<br><br>><br>>I will await the staff briefing note, but my<br>>understanding of the rules is that Council passes<br>>particular changes on to the WG for their<br>>consideration. The WG can agree or disagree with<br>>them. If they agree, Council then needs to vote<br>>on whether to approve or not. Having passed the<br>>specific wording to the WG does not bind the<br>>Council to approve the changes. However, like any<br>>recommendation of a PDP WG, Council should have a<br>>good reason to not follow the WG's recommendations.<br>><br>>Regarding voting, I the threshold "should" be the<br>>same as was required to pass the original WG<br>>Recs, since these are yet more rec ofut of the<br>>PDP WG. However, I current wording may make that subject to<br>>interpretation.<br>><br>>Alan<br>><br>>At 09/07/2014 12:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote:<br>><br>>>Hi,<br>>><br>>>As another meeting approaches, I return to my discomfort with the motion.<br>>><br>>>As I interpret the rules, we are to send changes that we wish to see<br>>>made to the 'reconstituted' WG for reconsideration. I know that some<br>>>have argued that we do not need to approve of them, we just send them<br>>>on, but that is not the way I read the rules. Perhaps we need a legal<br>>>opinion.<br>>><br>>>I have no objection to passing issues on to a WG for study and<br>>>reconsideration. My problem is sending them on with prior council<br>>>approval and I think that is what the current rules demand.<br>>><br>>>Also, what is the voting threshold for this motion. Is it a majority<br>>>issue since it is not otherwise defined?<br>>><br>>>thanks<br>>><br>>>avri<br>>><br>>>On 26-Jun-14 10:12, Avri Doria wrote:<br>>> ><br>>> > Hi,<br>>> ><br>>> > The relevant Procedures:<br>>> ><br>>> >> 16. Amendments or Modifications of Approved Policies Approved<br>>> ><br>>> >> GNSO<br>>> >> Council policies may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council at<br>>> >> any time prior to the final approval by the ICANN Board as follows:<br>>> ><br>>> >> 1. The PDP Team is reconvened or, if disbanded, reformed, and should<br>>> >> be consulted with regards to the proposed amendments or<br>>> >> modifications;<br>>> ><br>>> >> 2. The proposed amendments or modifications are posted<br>>> >> for public comment for not less than thirty (30) days;<br>>> ><br>>> >> 3. The GNSO<br>>> >> Council approves of such amendments or modifications with a<br>>> >> Supermajority Vote of both Houses in favour. Approved GNSO Council<br>>> >> policies that have been adopted by the ICANN Board and have been<br>>> >> implemented by ICANN Staff may only be amended by the initiation of a<br>>> >> new PDP on the issue.<br>>> ><br>>> > I interpret this as meaning we have to approve the wording of the<br>>> > amendments before sending them, as these will be the amendments the WG<br>>> > needs to either accept of reject. I do not see the procedure as<br>>> > allowing us to just send them topics to be discussed.<br>>> ><br>>> > I must admit I am finding them all a bit hard to accept. I also must<br>>> > say I do not see any new<br>>> > evidence or arguments.<br>>> ><br>>> > In terms of TMCH+50_Forever I do not see on what basis we could ever<br>>> > make such a decision as this was not ever a subject for the PDP in the<br>>> > first place.<br>>> ><br>>> > Lastly, what is the voting threshold for this motion? Majority?<br>>>Super<br>>> > Majority?<br>>> ><br>>> ><br>>> > Finally, if this is going to become a regular occurrence, which would<br>>> > not surprise me, we should give consideration to asking the SCI to<br>>>look<br>>> > at the subject after we have completed the project.<br>>> ><br>>> > Thanks<br>>> > avri<br>>> ><br>>> ><br>>> ><br>>> ><br>>> > On 23-Jun-14 16:58, Thomas Rickert wrote:<br>>> >> All, 1. Following up to the discussion we had on this subject, please<br>>> >> find attached: (1) a draft motion setting out the background (in the<br>>> >> Whereas clauses) and proposed steps the Council will take in relation<br>>> >> to possibly modifying the GNSO¹s consensus recommendations on RCRC<br>>> >> and IGO acronym identifier protections in response to the NGPC letter<br>>> >> of 16 June; (2) a document containing the actual proposed<br>>> >> modification for the Council to discuss forwarding on to the<br>>> >> reconvened WG and including some background information such as the<br>>> >> actual original WG recommendation and GAC advice; and (3) a<br>>> >> comparison table showing the original WG recommendations and the<br>>> >> proposed modifications side by side.<br>>> >><br>>> >> This is to inform your discussion with your respective groups in<br>>> >> preparation for the public meeting on Wednesday. Of course, the<br>>> >> motion will not be voted on till the first meeting following this<br>>> >> London gathering, but we thought it might be useful for the Council<br>>> >> to have all the necessary documentation at the first possible<br>>> >> opportunity.<br>>> >><br>>> >> Please note also that we have not run the final versions of the<br>>> >> recommended proposal by our legal colleagues as in the interests of<br>>> >> time we thought it important for you to be able to review these<br>>> >> early!<br>>> >><br>>> >> Kudos to policy staff, especially Mary, for turning this around at<br>>> >> such short notice and prepare the paperwork. Thanks so much!<br>>> >><br>>> >> 2. During the GAC/GNSO session (which I think was an excellent<br>>> >> meeting), there was only little time to discuss this issue. Having<br>>> >> spoken to a few people afterwards, including a GAC member, I was<br>>> >> wondering whether the current status and the suggested actions are<br>>> >> sufficiently clear. In particular, I am afraid that there is the<br>>> >> misconception that a full PDP might be required for changes to the<br>>> >> recommendations. I would therefore suggest we send a small briefing<br>>> >> note to the GAC (we = Jonathan :-). Chances would be that the GAC<br>>> >> could consider this for its communiqué.<br>>> >><br>>> >> *** Dear Heather, following up to yesterday's GAC / GNSO session, we<br>>> >> would like to briefly outline both the current status as well as the<br>>> >> next steps with respect to the IGO/RCRC question.<br>>> >><br>>> >> 1. The GNSO Council has been approached by the NGPC with a letter of<br>>> >> June 16th, 2014 suggesting that indefinite claims service to provide<br>>> >> notice to the organization in question is offered for the<br>>> >> designations in question whenever such designation has been<br>>> >> registered. Currently, the GNSO policy recommendations provide for a<br>>> >> 90 days claims service.<br>>> >><br>>> >> The GNSO Council will continue its discussion on this subject during<br>>> >> the public meeting on Wednesday. Should the GNSO Council decide so,<br>>> >> the course of action would be to reconvene the PDP WG to consider<br>>> >> this very question and get back to the GNSO Council. We would like to<br>>> >> stress that this consultation process would presumably take a short<br>>> >> period of time. The GNSO's PDP Manual offers such process. This would<br>>> >> not be a PDP.<br>>> >><br>>> >> 2. The second suggestion is to modify certain aspects of the URS to<br>>> >> enable its use by IGOs and the development of rules and procedures<br>>> >> for an arbitration process to resolve claims of abuse of IGO names<br>>> >> and acronyms. We note that this work is already under way with the<br>>> >> PDP that has been initiated by the GNSO Council at its last meeting<br>>> >> on June 5th, 2014. Thus, no action is required with respect to<br>>> >> potential modifications of GNSO Council policy recommendations as the<br>>> >> aspect of working on potential modifications of curative rights<br>>> >> protection mechanisms was already included in the set of<br>>> >> recommendations the GNSO Council unanimously adopted last year. While<br>>> >> the work on the PDP is conducted, the temporary protections remain in<br>>> >> place, as the NGPC confirmed.<br>>> >><br>>> >> We welcome your and the IGO Coalition's collaboration on these<br>>> >> matters.<br>>> >><br>>> >> Yours sincerely,<br>>> >><br>>> >> ***<br>>> >><br>>> >> Any thoughts or suggestions?<br>>> >><br>>> >> Best, Thomas<br>>> >><br>>> >><br>>> >><br>>> >><br>>> >><br>>> >><br>>> >><br>>> >><br>>> >><br>>> >><br>>> >><br>>> >><br>>> >> ___________________________________________________________ Thomas<br>>> >> Rickert, Attorney at Law Director Names & Numbers<br>>> >><br>>> >> ------------------------------------- eco - Verband der deutschen<br>>> >> Internetwirtschaft e.V.<br>>> >><br>>> >> Lichtstraße 43h 50825 Köln<br>>> >><br>>> >> Fon: +49 (0) 221 - 70 00 48 - 0 Fax: +49 (0) 221 - 70 00 48 -<br>>> >> 111 E-Mail: thomas.rickert@eco.de <mailto:thomas.rickert@eco.de> Web:<br>>> >> http://www.eco.de<br>>> >><br>>> >> ---------------------------------------------------<br>>> >><br>>> >> eco - Verband der deutschen Internetwirtschaft e.V. Geschäftsführer:<br>>> >> Harald A. Summa Vorstand: Prof. Michael Rotert (Vorsitzender), Oliver<br>>> >> Süme (stv. Vorsitzender), Klaus Landefeld, Thomas von Bülow, Felix<br>>> >> Höger Vereinsregister: Amtsgericht Köln, VR 14478 Sitz des Vereins:<br>>> >> Köln<br>>> >><br>>> >><br>>> >><br>>> ><br>>> ><br>><br>><br><br></body>