[council] update on IGO-INGO motion

[Mary Wong]

My apologies if I misunderstood your question, Wolf-Ulrich!

Basically, in that specific instance then the Council would first vote on
the proposed amendment(s). If the vote on that fails, then you would vote on
the original unamended motion. Although this procedure is not spelled out in
the Bylaws or Operating Procedures, this has been the custom and has been
done several times, including in the recent past.

Again, 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 2:25 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,
>  
> to be more specific: what if the amendments are not seen as friendly? What are
> the options for the council?
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
>  
> From: Mary Wong <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:49 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 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/b35ffffa/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/b35ffffa/smime.p7s>