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

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

Thanks Tim.

Glen, please update the wiki to show Zahid's amendment as a separate text.

I will update the agenda to include the fact that we are voting on each resolve 
clause separately.

If someone objects to that, please say so asap.

Stéphane

Le 1 févr. 2011 à 12:40, Tim Ruiz a écrit :

> 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
> > Date: Tue, February 01, 2011 3:43 am
> > To: "Tim Ruiz" 
> > 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
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
>