RE: [council] Motions for 17 Dec Council Meeting

["Mary Wong" <MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all,
 
On motion 4: in light of the concerns and effects that several people
have noted about this particular request, and in light further of
Stephane's and Mike's earlier emails on issues such as work
prioritization and the Council's role in approving such requests, I
agree with Tim that we should take the time to seriously discuss this
issue, and in a broader context. 
 
Even putting the discussion/decision off until our January meeting may
allow us to get better information about the PPSC/PDP-WT process to
date, and to consider some implications and potential precedents the
Council may be setting going forward, in terms of how and why we support
these requests (or not).
 
On motion 2: my impression is that the STI process saw a tremendous
level of active participation, collaboration and willingness to
compromise across all GNSO SGs. The report also shows a great deal of
GNSO community consensus as a result of tremendous hard work on the part
of all SG representatives, particularly in meeting the very tight
deadline originally set by the Board.
 
My understanding is that the only outstanding minority report is one
from ALAC (and I understand, further, that this will pertain to only one
or two points in the STI report). As such, I would urge the Council not
to postpone voting on this motion, and send a strong signal to the
Board, ICANN staff and community that the consensus-driven process
works, and has resulted in a workable and broadly-acceptable proposal
for one of the overarching issues in new gTLDs previously identified by
the Board.
 
Cheers
Mary 
 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mwong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network
(SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584


>>> "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> 12/14/2009 9:55 AM >>>

For motion 3 it makes sense to make an exception and delay a vote the
PDP. We just received the Issues Report so it seems premature to be
voting on a PDP, or at least to do it well informed. On the other
hand,
not sure why we need a motion to decide not to make a motion.

Motion 4 is not critical and I see no reason to make a quick judgement
call on that, especially when it has far reaching affects that we
should
seriously consider/discuss. I don't support making an exception for
this
one.

For motion 2, I know we are already past the date that the Board has
asked for a response, but we are getting into the Holiday season and I
doubt much attention would be would be given to the STI proposal until
after the New Year even if we approve/accept it this week. Also, is it
appropriate to vote on it until it is complete with the minority
reports
added?

Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] Motions for 17 Dec Council Meeting
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, December 14, 2009 8:27 am
To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "GNSO Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Strephane,

We did not receive the Issues Report for motion 3 until Friday, 11
December, which was after the deadline for documents, a different
Council Procedures requirement.  I should have made that more clear.

This discussion brings something else to mind that would be good to do
going forward: We should make sure that the dates motions are
submitted
are always shown with the motions on the wiki and anywhere else they
are
posted.  In checking the motions for this week's meeting, I see that
we
do that in some cases and not others.

Glen - In the future, I suggest that we make it a practice to always
show the date a motion was made after the name of the person who made
the motion.

Chuck

From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 9:13 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: GNSO Council
Subject: Re: [council] Motions for 17 Dec Council Meeting



Thanks Chuck, 

I don't understand why that requirement applies to motion 3, which you
made on Dec 4, therefore well inside the 8-day requirement by my
count.


On motion 2, I am in the same boat as you (overwhelmed by emails) and
cannot find the original motion proposal (which I take it was made by
staff, since it is not even moved yet). Do you have a record of what
date that was?


Thanks,


Stéphane

Le 14 déc. 2009 à 15:02, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :

Thanks for the correction Stephane.  Not sure how I missed your second
of motion 3.

Regarding the Council Operating Procedures requirement that motions
should be submitted 8 days prior to a Council meeting, that
requirement
would apply to motion 2, motion 3 and motion 4.  In all three cases
the
Coucil would need to agree to an exception to the procedures
requirement
or we will have to delay action on all three topics.

Chuck

From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 8:43 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: GNSO Council
Subject: Re: [council] Motions for 17 Dec Council Meeting



Hi Chuck, 

Your description is incorrect. I had seconded motion 3 on December 6.


Further, it is my assessment of the 8 day notice requirement set out
by
article 3.3 of the GNSO operating rules and procedures that motion 4,
proposed by Wolf on Dec 13, cannot be submitted for our Dec 17
meeting.


I am happy to be corrected if this assessment is wrong.


Thanks,


Stéphane

Le 13 déc. 2009 à 14:22, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :

For our 17 Dec Council meeting, the following four motions listed
below
with their status are posted at
https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?17_december_motions):

+ Motion To Approve Tool Kit of Services Recommendations for GNSO
Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups (amended 4 Dec 09) - moved &
seconded 
+ Motion to Approve the Alternative Proposal recommended by the
Special
Trademark Issues Review Team - needs to be moved and seconded 
+ Motion to delay decision regarding initiation of a Vertical
Integration PDP - needs to be seconded 
+ Proposed Motion on Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting
-
needs to be seconded

At this point, only motion 1 above is ready for action.  So we need
someone to make motion 2 and, if that happens, we will need a second. 
We also need seconds on motions 3 & 4. 

Chuck