Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
Jeff, thanks for your e-mail. I have not asked you yet to accept this as a friendly amendment, but will do so in case the motion will remain as I have circulated it now. Nonetheless, it would be most helpful if you could indicate whether or not you would accept it as friendly. Thanks, Thomas Am 19.11.2013 um 11:24 schrieb "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>: > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On > Behalf OfThomas 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. > > 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. > > 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 Attachment:
signature.asc
|