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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

BTW, the threshholds are in Article X, Section 3, item 9 of the bylaws.


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, January 31, 2011 4:05 pm
> To: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "GNSO Council"
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 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 
> 
> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:54:04 +0100
> To: 
> Cc: ; GNSO Council
> 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 
> 
> Sender:  owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:17:34 +0100
> To: GNSO Council
> 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 LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 
> 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@xxxxxxx.eduPhone: 
> 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected 
> writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) 
> at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>>
> 
> From:
> Stéphane Van Gelder
> To:
> Zahid Jamil 
> CC:
> "'GNSO Council'" 
> 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 credentialsPractices 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 abusersPractices for 
> suspending domain namesAccount access security managementSecurity resources 
> of use or interest to registrars and registriesSurvey 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>