[council] Motions re. Vertical Integration PDP

[Gomes, Chuck]

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
https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?28_january_2010_motions).
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:

*	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.
*	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.

If anyone disagrees with my reasoning, please speak up. 
 
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.
 
Whatever we decide, 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. 
 
Chuck
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20100122/190bedce/attachment.html>