ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion


Jeff,
thanks for your e-mail.  I have not asked you yet to accept this as a friendly 
amendment, but will do so in case the motion will remain as I have circulated 
it now. Nonetheless, it would be most helpful if you could indicate whether or 
not you would accept it as friendly.

Thanks,
Thomas


Am 19.11.2013 um 11:24 schrieb "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>:

> Thomas,
>  
> Thanks for this.  Just for clarification, are you asking this to be 
> considered by the maker of the motion as a friendly amendment?
>  
> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Registry Services
>  
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf OfThomas Rickert
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:12 AM
> To: GNSO Council List; Jonathan Robinson
> Subject: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
>  
> Dear Councilors, 
>  
> In view of the discussion in and feedback from the GNSO's Working Session on 
> Saturday, I've asked ICANN staff to create some additional materials that I 
> hope will be useful during your discussions of the IGO-INGO motion with your 
> respective constituencies and stakeholder groups on Tuesday. ICANN staff has 
> also consulted with ICANN's legal department regarding the questions that 
> were raised about voting thresholds and Consensus Policies. 
>  
> Voting Thresholds 
> The voting thresholds for PDP recommendations to be adopted are set out in 
> the ICANN Bylaws herehttp://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X.
>  
> As you can see, approving a PDP recommendation requires at a minimum:
>  
> 'an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that 
> one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder 
> Groups supports the Recommendation'.
>  
> It should be noted though that depending on whether a supermajority vote is 
> achieved on a recommendation, the voting threshold needed for the ICANN Board 
> to determine that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN 
> community or ICANN differs (i.e. if supermajority is achieved, it requires 
> more than a 2/3 vote of the Board, while if no supermajority is achieved, a 
> majority vote of the Board would be sufficient) - 
> http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA. 
>  
> Furthermore, if a supermajority threshold is achieved, the certainty of 
> implementing some or parts of some of the recommendations as Consensus Policy 
> may be more clear, but further determinations would need to be made in 
> relation to each of the adopted recommendations as part of the implementation 
> process to determine what would be the most effective / efficient way of 
> implementation. If a supermajority threshold is not achieved, alternative 
> mechanisms can be considered to implement the recommendations.
>  
> Finally, to approve an Issue Report, what is required is a quarter of each 
> House or a majority of one House.
>  
> Structure of the motion
> After consultation with Jonathan, I suggest the Council should vote on the 
> second alternative of what was Recommendation 5, which is why we could delete 
> the first alternative from the draft motion. 
>  
> One additional thing I'd like to suggest is that, instead of considering the 
> request to the SCI (to review consensus levels in the WG Guidelines) as part 
> of the motion, the Council take up that item as part of our Consent Agenda 
> during the Wednesday meeting. Jonathan – this item is for your attention and 
> action; will you grant the request?
>  
> Attached to this email are the following: 
>  
> (1) A renumbered IGO-INGO motion: 
> Renumbered such that the former Resolved Clause 5 (which contains the 
> language pertaining to those recommendations that received Strong Support but 
> Significant Opposition) is now moved to the end of the motion and the two 
> alternative wordings highlighted in yellow- with the result that all the 
> preceding Resolved clauses now contain only the WG's Consensus 
> recommendations.  
> All Consensus recommendations are marked with two red **s; those receiving 
> Strong Support but Significant Opposition (now contained in the last Resolved 
> clause with the renumbering (new clause 8)) are marked with three blue ###s.
> The word "and" has been underlined in the new clause 8, in the bullet point 
> concerning IGO acronyms entering the TM Clearinghouse (currently Strong 
> Support but Significant Opposition) - to emphasize the fact that at the 
> moment there is no WG consensus on whether IGO acronyms should enter the TMCH 
> for second-level protections (there is already Consensus that these acronyms 
> will not receive top level protection).
> The former Resolved Clause 7 (referring to the SCI review of the WG 
> Guidelines) has been removed – to be moved to the Council's Consent Agenda if 
> approved.
> No substantive, language or any other editing changes have been made to the 
> motion – this is otherwise the same motion that was sent on 10 November and 
> discussed over the weekend.
> (2) A list of the exact identifiers referred to in the WG report and the 
> motion for each group of organizations (RCRC, IOC, IGOs and INGOs other than 
> the RCRC/IOC).
>  
> Hopefully these supplementary materials will assist in further constructive 
> discussions on Tuesday and Wednesday.
>  
> Thanks,
> Thomas

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>