RES: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment

Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf jaime at powerself.com.br
Wed Feb 2 21:41:51 UTC 2011


Tim,

 

I agree with your understanding that BP should be an initiative of Contracted Parties.

 

But what if this initiative never materializes?

 

If not an Issues Report, what kind of incentive should be given by the Council so that the Contracted Parties assume their responsibility in taking this effort seriously?

 

 

 

Jaime Wagner

 <mailto:jaime at powerself.com.br> jaime at powerself.com.br
Direto (51) 3219-5955  Cel (51) 8126-0916

Geral  (51) 3233-3551  DDG: 0800-703-6366

 <http://www.powerself.com.br/> www.powerself.com.br

 

De: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] Em nome de Tim Ruiz
Enviada em: terça-feira, 1 de fevereiro de 2011 09:40
Para: council at gnso.icann.org
Assunto: RE: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment

 

I think it's pretty clear. If there is a motion with two resolves that
each require different threshholds the Council cannot decide on its own
to apply something different. 

I didn't think the RAP motion was that difficult to deal with even with
two resolves with different thresholds. If the motion got at least a
simple majority of both houses then both resolves pass, if it got less
than a simple majority but at least what is required for an issues
report then only the second resolve passes. If it didn't get at least
that neither passes.

But given the confusion this has caused I will never do it again. So as
I already said I am fine with what Jeff suggests and consider it a
friendly amendment.

Unfortunately, I cannot accept Zahid's proposed amendment as friendly.
While registrars are generally in favor of BPs, it is not appropriate to
request an issues report on that since it is not a policy issue. In
fact, it is not even a Council issue. Registrars would likely accept an
amendment where the Council acknowledges that aspect of the
recommendations and asks that the Contracted parties take the lead in
developing such BPs.

That's really about all the Council can do on it. If the Contracted
parties fall short in getting it done, then they risk each of the issues
recommended for BP's coming back up at Council as possible policy
initiatives.

Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder
> Date: Tue, February 01, 2011 3:43 am
> To: "Tim Ruiz" 
> Cc: owner-council at gnso.icann.org, council at gnso.icann.org
> 
> I know the text and my read of it is not the same as yours.
> 
> As I think this is a crucial discussion, because I don't think our bylaws are always as clear as they should be, I would welcome other input on this.
> 
> The text says: Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Council Operating Rules and Procedures approved by the Board, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each house. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: 
> 
> 
> And then goes on to define the thresholds. So it talks about thresholds to pass a motion, NOT individual resolve clauses.
> 
> 
> The solution you propose is one that could work. Another is to apply the lowest threshold to the full motion. Yet another is to split motions that have multiple resolves which taken separately would have different thresholds apply.
> 
> 
> I would like to see some concrete guidance in the bylaws on what to do in those cases, and I think that's something we may want to look at adding in the bylaws. Over the past few months, as we've found that texts coming out of the 2 GNSO improvements Steering Committees are not always to be easy to apply, we've asked the SCs to look at them again.
> 
> 
> I would also like the same desire for clarity to apply to our bylaws and op procs.
> 
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 
> Le 31 janv. 2011 à 23:11, Tim Ruiz a écrit :
> The bylaws are clear on the thresholds. If a motion contains resolves
> that require different thresholds to pass then take a vote and apply the
> threshholds as the bylaws require to each resolve, it doesn't need to be
> any more complicated than that.
> 
> Of course, there will be situations where not all Council members are
> comfortable with voting on a mixed threshold motion for various reasons.
> In that event, I don't see any issue with proceeding as Jeff suggests.
> 
> 
> Tim
> 
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment
> > From: Stéphane Van Gelder
> > Date: Mon, January 31, 2011 4:05 pm
> > To: tim at godaddy.com
> > Cc: owner-council at gnso.icann.org, "GNSO Council"
> > 
> > 
> > Help me out Tim. Where in the rules does it say that thresholds should apply to anything but a motion as a whole?
> > 
> > I am happy to apply whatever strategy looks best here. Do you agree with Jeff's amendment as a way forward?
> > 
> > Stéphane
> > 
> > Le 31 janv. 2011 à 22:59, tim at godaddy.com a écrit :
> > I don't agree with that assessment. We had a group work hard on that for a long time and came with this structure and the theshholds. They are integral parts of each other. The Council cannot change that and should not change that any more so than it would take it upon itself to change a consensus policy.
> > 
> > Tim
> > From: Stéphane Van Gelder 
> > 
> > Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:54:04 +0100
> > To: 
> > Cc: ; GNSO Council
> > Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment
> > 
> > There is nothing in our procedures that would prevent us from considering the whole motion with the lowest applicable threshold to one of its parts. However, in this case, it does look like it will be difficult to consider this motion as one whole.
> > 
> > Jeff has suggested an amendment to split the motion. That would seem an useful solution to consider.
> > 
> > Stéphane
> > 
> > Le 31 janv. 2011 à 19:27, tim at godaddy.com a écrit :
> > I object since it may be amended, friendly or otherwise. And if we apply the appropriate to threshold to each resolve it will prevent any questions later. The entire GNSO community was involved in setting those thresholds, I think it would be inappropriate for the Council to change them or apply them inconsistently without consultation.
> > 
> > Tim
> > From: Stéphane Van Gelder 
> > 
> > Sender: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
> > 
> > Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:17:34 +0100
> > To: GNSO Council
> > Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment
> > 
> > On this motion, you will remember that during our last meeting we discussed the voting thresholds for this motion.
> > 
> > While the Council Leaders were working to prepare for the meeting, we identified the fact that the original 2 resolve clauses carried different thresholds. The 1st clause has a standard threshold while the 2nd clause carries the lower threshold that goes with issues report.
> > 
> > I suggested we apply the lowest voting threshold to the whole motion. There was no opposition to that during the meeting.
> > 
> > However, as the motion was deferred and now may actually include a 3rd resolve, I would like to ask the question again. Is the Council Ok with applying the lowest threshold to the full motion?
> > 
> > Stéphane
> > 
> > 
> > Le 28 janv. 2011 à 10:16, Zahid Jamil a écrit :
> > Dear Mary,
> > Thanks for your queries here are responses to your questions.
> > Q1: First, how does the list of topics relate to both group's consensus recommendations
> > 
> > Ans: It's the group's highest ranked recommendation (among those not considered low-hanging fruit) and topics are taken verbatim from RAP DT letter
> > 
> > Q2: secondly, do these need an Issues Report (which usually prefaces a vote for/against a full PDP)?
> > 
> > Ans: no because these are best practices and not consensus policy
> > Sincerely,
> >  
> >  
> > Zahid Jamil
> > Barrister-at-law
> > Jamil & Jamil
> > Barristers-at-law
> > 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
> > Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
> > Cell: +923008238230
> > Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025
> > Fax: +92 21 35655026
> > www.jamilandjamil.com
> >  
> > Notice / Disclaimer
> > This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.  Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited.
> > 
> >  
> > From: Mary Wong [mailto:Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] 
> > Sent: 27 January 2011 17:15
> > To: Zahid Jamil; Stéphane Van Gelder
> > Cc: 'GNSO Council'
> > Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > Hi - I had a couple of questions for Zahid and the BC - unfortunately I haven't had the chance to go back to the RAP WG final report, or refer to the RAP Implementation DT's letter and rankings/recommendations but here goes. First, how does the list of topics relate to both group's consensus recommendations, and, secondly, do these need an Issues Report (which usually prefaces a vote for/against a full PDP)?
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 
> > Mary 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Mary W S Wong
> > 
> > Professor of Law
> > 
> > Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> > 
> > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>>
> > 
> > From:
> > Stéphane Van Gelder
> > To:
> > Zahid Jamil 
> > CC:
> > "'GNSO Council'" 
> > Date:
> > 1/27/2011 5:59 AM
> > Subject:
> > Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment
> > Thanks Zahid.
> >  
> > 
> > Tim, Jeff, do you accept the amendment as friendly?
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Stéphane
> > Le 26 janv. 2011 à 19:22, Zahid Jamil a écrit :
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Dear All,
> > 
> > On behalf of the BC I would like to propose the following amendment to the Council motion at item 6 (RAP).  In the motion (deferred from the previous Council call -https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?3_february_motions) the following may be added as Resolved 3:
> > 
> > RESOLVED #3, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the illicit use of domain names in accordance with Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report. This effort should consider (but not be limited the following subjects:
> > 
> > Practices for identifying stolen credentialsPractices for identifying and investigating common forms of malicious use (such as malware and phishing)Creating anti-abuse terms of service for inclusion in Registrar-Registrant agreements, and for use by TLD operators.Identifying compromised/hacked domains versus domain registered by abusersPractices for suspending domain namesAccount access security managementSecurity resources of use or interest to registrars and registriesSurvey registrars and registries to determine practices being used, and their adoption rates.Sincerely,
> > 
> > Zahid Jamil
> > 
> > Barrister-at-law
> > 
> > Jamil & Jamil
> > 
> > Barristers-at-law
> > 
> > 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
> > 
> > Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
> > 
> > Cell: +923008238230
> > 
> > Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025
> > 
> > Fax: +92 21 35655026
> > 
> > www.jamilandjamil.com
> > 
> > Notice / Disclaimer
> > 
> > This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.  Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> >  
> > As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname at law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20110202/233f10fb/attachment.html>


More information about the council mailing list