Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
Hello - the redlined version is attached. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx * One World. One Internet. * From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 12:16 PM To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion > It would be helpful for the constituencies¹ discussion to have a redline > version of the motion available. > Could staff please provide it? > > Thanks > Wolf-Ulrich > > > From: Neuman, Jeff <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:24 AM > To: 'Thomas Rickert' <mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx> ; GNSO Council List > <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ; Jonathan Robinson > <mailto:jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: RE: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion > > 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 Of Thomas 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 > <http://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 > <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:
REDLINE MOTION 19 November.docx Attachment:
smime.p7s
|