[council] update on IGO-INGO motion

[Mary Wong]

Hello Wolf-Ulrich,

If the changes to the motion ­ (1) renumbering by (a) moving the Strong
Support but Significant Opposition clause to the end, and (b) removing the
clause about the SCI reviewing consensus levels; (2) proposing the removal
of the SCI clause; and (3) proposing that the Council vote on the Strong
Support but Significant Opposition recommendations (rather than the Council
"reserving the right to deliberate [them] at the appropriate time" - are
being proposed by Thomas as possible friendly amendments, then Jeff (as
proposer) and you, Wolf-Ulrich (as seconder), will have to consider if you
will accept them as such.

I hope this helps.

Cheers
Mary

Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong at icann.org

* One World. One Internet. *

From:  WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Reply-To:  WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Date:  Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:34 PM
To:  Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>, "Neuman, Jeff"
<Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert at anwaelte.de>, GNSO
Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson
<jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
Subject:  Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion

> Thanks Mary,
>  
> could you please clarify on how the amendment process is to be dealt with
> according to the GNSO rules?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
>  
> From: Mary Wong <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:01 PM
> To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>  ; Neuman, Jeff
> <mailto:Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>  ; 'Thomas Rickert'
> <mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>  ; GNSO Council List
> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>  ; Jonathan Robinson
> <mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
>  
> Hello - the redlined version is attached.
>  
> Cheers
> Mary
>  
> Mary Wong
> Senior Policy Director
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
> Email: mary.wong at icann.org
> 
> * One World. One Internet. *
>  
> From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 12:16 PM
> To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>, 'Thomas Rickert'
> <rickert at anwaelte.de>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>, Jonathan
> Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
>  
>>  
>>    
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> It would be helpful for the constituencies¹ discussion to have a redline
>> version of the motion available.
>>  
>> Could staff please provide it?
>>  
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Wolf-Ulrich
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> From: Neuman, Jeff <mailto:Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>
>>  
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:24 AM
>>  
>> To: 'Thomas Rickert' <mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>  ; GNSO Council  List
>> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>  ; Jonathan Robinson
>> <mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
>>  
>> Subject: RE: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> Thomas,
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Thanks  for this.  Just for clarification, are you asking this to be
>> considered  by the maker of the motion as a friendly amendment?
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> Jeffrey  J. Neuman
>> Neustar,  Inc. / Vice President, Registry Services
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org  [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]  On
>> Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013  11:12 AM
>> To: GNSO Council List; Jonathan Robinson
>> Subject:  [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> Dear Councilors,
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> 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.
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> Voting  Thresholds
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> 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
>> <http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X> .
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> As you can see,  approving a PDP recommendation requires at a  minimum:
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> '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'.
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> 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
>> <http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA> .
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> 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.
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> Finally, to  approve an Issue Report, what is required is a quarter of each
>> House or a  majority of one House.
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> Structure of the  motion
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> 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.
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> 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?
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> Attached to this  email are the following:
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> (1) A renumbered  IGO-INGO motion:
>>  
>> * 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.
>> * 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.  
>> * 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).
>> * 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.  
>> * 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.
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> (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).
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> Hopefully these  supplementary materials will assist in further constructive
>> discussions on  Tuesday and Wednesday.
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> Thanks,
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> Thomas
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>  


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20131119/a9168a73/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5033 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20131119/a9168a73/smime.p7s>