RE: [council] Motions for 17 Dec Council Meeting

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

The ALAC minority report was submitted to Margie 
on Monday and was forwarded to the Council soon 
after, so you all should have received it then. 
It was resent to the Council today, embedded 
within the STI report (page 37-39).
Our vote formally closes just prior to the GNSO 
meeting, but based on the votes so far, the 
motion to support the report and the minority statements has already passed.
Given the level of work (not to mention good 
will) that went into getting out the report and 
the minority statements, I think that it would be 
a real pity if the GNSO does not vote at 
Thursday's meeting. It would certainly send a bad 
message to those who may be asked to participate 
in such Herculean efforts next time.
Alan

At 15/12/2009 10:34 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> I have no problem with the STI recommendations, and no problem moving it
> along. But I would like to at least hear from ALAC regarding their
> minority report before we vote.
>
> Tim
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] Motions for 17 Dec Council Meeting
> From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, December 14, 2009 11:46 am
> To: "Mary Wong" <MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "GNSO Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Tim Ruiz"
> <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I am in full agreement with both points made by Mary.
>
> I think it is especially important, in light of the tremendous effort of
> the STI to deliver its report in as timely a manner as possible, for us
> to act on this report asap. I have read the report and I hope others
> have found the time to read it also. I agree with Mary that the Council
> would be sending a strong signal to both the community and the Board if
> it was able to consider the STI report at its next meeting. That may
> mean some amendments to the motion might be needed, but let's at least
> talk about it during the next meeting (which means agreeing to an
> exception in the case of motion 2).
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Stéphane
>
> Le 14 déc. 2009 à 18:06, Mary Wong a écrit :
>
> 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