Re: [council] Motions re. Vertical Integration PDP

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Just to be clear chuck, stephane's motion is indeed to initiate a PDP. Just not 
right now.... It was a motion only to defer not eliminate.

Sent from my iPhone

On 23/01/2010, at 5:16, "Gomes, Chuck" 
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

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> 
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