<HTML xmlns:o><HEAD>
<META content="text/html charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type></HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"
dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>FYI in advance to the constituency meeting</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000"><BR><BR>Best
regards<BR><BR>Wolf-Ulrich<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none; DISPLAY: inline">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=rickert@anwaelte.de
href="mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de">Thomas Rickert</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:12 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=council@gnso.icann.org
href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">GNSO Council List</A> ; <A
title=jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com
href="mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com">Jonathan Robinson</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> [council] update on IGO-INGO motion</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none; DISPLAY: inline">
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif">Dear Councilors,
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif">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. </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif"><B>Voting
Thresholds</B> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif">The voting
thresholds for PDP recommendations to be adopted are set out in the ICANN Bylaws
here<A style="COLOR: purple"
href="http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X">http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X</A>.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif">As you can see,
approving a PDP recommendation requires at a minimum:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif">'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'.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif">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) - <A style="COLOR: purple"
href="http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA">http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA</A>.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">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.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif">Finally, to
approve an Issue Report, what is required is a quarter of each House or a
majority of one House.</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif"><B>Structure of
the motion</B></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif">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. </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif">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?</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif">Attached to this
email are the following: </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif">(1) A renumbered
IGO-INGO motion: </DIV>
<UL style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif">
<LI>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.
<LI>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.
<LI>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).
<LI>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.
<LI>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.</LI></UL>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif">(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).</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif">Hopefully these
supplementary materials will assist in further constructive discussions on
Tuesday and Wednesday.</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif">Thanks,</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif">Thomas</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif"></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif"></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif"></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
Dear Councilors, <BR><BR>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.
<BR><BR>Voting Thresholds <BR>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.<BR> <BR>As you can
see, approving a PDP recommendation requires at a minimum:<BR> <BR>'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'.<BR> <BR>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.
<BR> <BR>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.<BR><BR>Finally,
to approve an Issue Report, what is required is a quarter of each House or a
majority of one House.<BR><BR>Structure of the motion<BR>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. <BR><BR>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?<BR><BR>Attached to this
email are the following: <BR><BR>(1) A renumbered IGO-INGO motion:
<BR>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. <BR>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.<BR>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).<BR>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.<BR>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.<BR>(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).<BR><BR>Hopefully these supplementary materials will assist in
further constructive discussions on Tuesday and
Wednesday.<BR><BR>Thanks,<BR>Thomas<BR><BR><BR><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>