Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Help me out Tim. Where in the rules does it say that thresholds should apply to 
anything but a motion as a whole?

I am happy to apply whatever strategy looks best here. Do you agree with Jeff's 
amendment as a way forward?

Stéphane

Le 31 janv. 2011 à 22:59, tim@xxxxxxxxxxx a écrit :

> I don't agree with that assessment. We had a group work hard on that for a 
> long time and came with this structure and the theshholds. They are integral 
> parts of each other. The Council cannot change that and should not change 
> that any more so than it would take it upon itself to change a consensus 
> policy.
> 
> Tim
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:54:04 +0100
> To: <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; GNSO Council<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment
> 
> There is nothing in our procedures that would prevent us from considering the 
> whole motion with the lowest applicable threshold to one of its parts. 
> However, in this case, it does look like it will be difficult to consider 
> this motion as one whole.
> 
> Jeff has suggested an amendment to split the motion. That would seem an 
> useful solution to consider.
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Le 31 janv. 2011 à 19:27, tim@xxxxxxxxxxx a écrit :
> 
>> I object since it may be amended, friendly or otherwise. And if we apply the 
>> appropriate to threshold to each resolve it will prevent any questions 
>> later. The entire GNSO community was involved in setting those thresholds, I 
>> think it would be inappropriate for the Council to change them or apply them 
>> inconsistently without consultation.
>> 
>> Tim
>> From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:17:34 +0100
>> To: GNSO Council<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment
>> 
>> On this motion, you will remember that during our last meeting we discussed 
>> the voting thresholds for this motion.
>> 
>> While the Council Leaders were working to prepare for the meeting, we 
>> identified the fact that the original 2 resolve clauses carried different 
>> thresholds. The 1st clause has a standard threshold while the 2nd clause 
>> carries the lower threshold that goes with issues report.
>> 
>> I suggested we apply the lowest voting threshold to the whole motion. There 
>> was no opposition to that during the meeting.
>> 
>> However, as the motion was deferred and now may actually include a 3rd 
>> resolve, I would like to ask the question again. Is the Council Ok with 
>> applying the lowest threshold to the full motion?
>> 
>> Stéphane
>> 
>> Le 28 janv. 2011 à 10:16, Zahid Jamil a écrit :
>> 
>>> Dear Mary,
>>> 
>>> Thanks for your queries here are responses to your questions.
>>> 
>>> Q1: First, how does the list of topics relate to both group's consensus 
>>> recommendations
>>> 
>>> Ans: It's the group's highest ranked recommendation (among those not 
>>> considered low-hanging fruit) and topics are taken verbatim from RAP DT 
>>> letter
>>> 
>>> Q2: secondly, do these need an Issues Report (which usually prefaces a vote 
>>> for/against a full PDP)?
>>> 
>>> Ans: no because these are best practices and not consensus policy
>>> 
>>> Sincerely,
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Zahid Jamil
>>> Barrister-at-law
>>> Jamil & Jamil
>>> Barristers-at-law
>>> 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
>>> Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
>>> Cell: +923008238230
>>> Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025
>>> Fax: +92 21 35655026
>>> www.jamilandjamil.com
>>>  
>>> Notice / Disclaimer
>>> This message contains confidential information and its contents are being 
>>> communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended 
>>> recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.  
>>> Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this 
>>> message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may 
>>> contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged 
>>> information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, 
>>> publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any 
>>> part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by 
>>> electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other 
>>> use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of 
>>> DNDRC is prohibited.
>>>  
>>> 
>>> From: Mary Wong [mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
>>> Sent: 27 January 2011 17:15
>>> To: Zahid Jamil; Stéphane Van Gelder
>>> Cc: 'GNSO Council'
>>> Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Hi - I had a couple of questions for Zahid and the BC - unfortunately I 
>>> haven't had the chance to go back to the RAP WG final report, or refer to 
>>> the RAP Implementation DT's letter and rankings/recommendations but here 
>>> goes. First, how does the list of topics relate to both group's consensus 
>>> recommendations, and, secondly, do these need an Issues Report (which 
>>> usually prefaces a vote for/against a full PDP)?
>>>  
>>> Thanks
>>> Mary 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> Mary W S Wong
>>> Professor of Law
>>> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
>>> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
>>> Two White Street
>>> Concord, NH 03301
>>> USA
>>> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
>>> Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
>>> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) 
>>> at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>>> >>>
>>> From:
>>> Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> To:
>>> Zahid Jamil <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> CC:
>>> "'GNSO Council'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Date:
>>> 1/27/2011 5:59 AM
>>> Subject:
>>> Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment
>>> Thanks Zahid.
>>>  
>>> Tim, Jeff, do you accept the amendment as friendly?
>>>  
>>> Stéphane
>>> 
>>> Le 26 janv. 2011 à 19:22, Zahid Jamil a écrit :
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dear All,
>>> On behalf of the BC I would like to propose the following amendment to the 
>>> Council motion at item 6 (RAP).  In the motion (deferred from the previous 
>>> Council call 
>>> -https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?3_february_motions) the 
>>> following may be added as Resolved 3:
>>> RESOLVED #3, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on the creation of 
>>> non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the 
>>> illicit use of domain names in accordance with Registration Abuse Policies 
>>> Working Group Final Report. This effort should consider (but not be limited 
>>> the following subjects:
>>> Practices for identifying stolen credentials
>>> Practices for identifying and investigating common forms of malicious use 
>>> (such as malware and phishing)
>>> Creating anti-abuse terms of service for inclusion in Registrar-Registrant 
>>> agreements, and for use by TLD operators.
>>> Identifying compromised/hacked domains versus domain registered by abusers
>>> Practices for suspending domain names
>>> Account access security management
>>> Security resources of use or interest to registrars and registries
>>> Survey registrars and registries to determine practices being used, and 
>>> their adoption rates.
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Zahid Jamil
>>> Barrister-at-law
>>> Jamil & Jamil
>>> Barristers-at-law
>>> 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
>>> Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
>>> Cell: +923008238230
>>> Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025
>>> Fax: +92 21 35655026
>>> www.jamilandjamil.com
>>> Notice / Disclaimer
>>> This message contains confidential information and its contents are being 
>>> communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended 
>>> recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.  
>>> Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this 
>>> message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may 
>>> contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged 
>>> information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, 
>>> publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any 
>>> part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by 
>>> electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other 
>>> use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of 
>>> DNDRC is prohibited.
>>>  
>>>  
>>> As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the 
>>> University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New 
>>> Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed 
>>> and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname@xxxxxxxxxxx. For more 
>>> information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit 
>>> law.unh.edu
>> 
>