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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think it's pretty clear. If there is a motion with two resolves that
each require different threshholds the Council cannot decide on its own
to apply something different. 

I didn't think the RAP motion was that difficult to deal with even with
two resolves with different thresholds. If the motion got at least a
simple majority of both houses then both resolves pass, if it got less
than a simple majority but at least what is required for an issues
report then only the second resolve passes. If it didn't get at least
that neither passes.

But given the confusion this has caused I will never do it again. So as
I already said I am fine with what Jeff suggests and consider it a
friendly amendment.

Unfortunately, I cannot accept Zahid's proposed amendment as friendly.
While registrars are generally in favor of BPs, it is not appropriate to
request an issues report on that since it is not a policy issue. In
fact, it is not even a Council issue. Registrars would likely accept an
amendment where the Council acknowledges that aspect of the
recommendations and asks that the Contracted parties take the lead in
developing such BPs.

That's really about all the Council can do on it. If the Contracted
parties fall short in getting it done, then they risk each of the issues
recommended for BP's coming back up at Council as possible policy
initiatives.

Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, February 01, 2011 3:43 am
> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> I know the text and my read of it is not the same as yours.
> 
> As I think this is a crucial discussion, because I don't think our bylaws are 
> always as clear as they should be, I would welcome other input on this.
> 
> The text says: Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, 
> or the GNSO Council Operating Rules and Procedures approved by the Board, the 
> default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action 
> requires a simple majority vote of each house. The voting thresholds 
> described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: 
> 
> 
> And then goes on to define the thresholds. So it talks about thresholds to 
> pass a motion, NOT individual resolve clauses.
> 
> 
> The solution you propose is one that could work. Another is to apply the 
> lowest threshold to the full motion. Yet another is to split motions that 
> have multiple resolves which taken separately would have different thresholds 
> apply.
> 
> 
> I would like to see some concrete guidance in the bylaws on what to do in 
> those cases, and I think that's something we may want to look at adding in 
> the bylaws. Over the past few months, as we've found that texts coming out of 
> the 2 GNSO improvements Steering Committees are not always to be easy to 
> apply, we've asked the SCs to look at them again.
> 
> 
> I would also like the same desire for clarity to apply to our bylaws and op 
> procs.
> 
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 
> Le 31 janv. 2011 à 23:11, Tim Ruiz a écrit :
> The bylaws are clear on the thresholds. If a motion contains resolves
> that require different thresholds to pass then take a vote and apply the
> threshholds as the bylaws require to each resolve, it doesn't need to be
> any more complicated than that.
> 
> Of course, there will be situations where not all Council members are
> comfortable with voting on a mixed threshold motion for various reasons.
> In that event, I don't see any issue with proceeding as Jeff suggests.
> 
> 
> Tim
> 
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment
> > From: Stéphane Van Gelder
> > Date: Mon, January 31, 2011 4:05 pm
> > To: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "GNSO Council"
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>