Re: [council] Motions re. Vertical Integration PDP

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Adrian. Maybe I interpreted too precisely. Regardless, it still seems 
that we only need to act on Mike' s motion. 

Chuck


________________________________

From: Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
To: Gomes, Chuck 
Cc: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent: Fri Jan 22 16:51:51 2010
Subject: Re: [council] Motions re. Vertical Integration PDP 


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> 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