Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
Hello Wolf-Ulrich, If the changes to the motion (1) renumbering by (a) moving the Strong Support but Significant Opposition clause to the end, and (b) removing the clause about the SCI reviewing consensus levels; (2) proposing the removal of the SCI clause; and (3) proposing that the Council vote on the Strong Support but Significant Opposition recommendations (rather than the Council "reserving the right to deliberate [them] at the appropriate time" - are being proposed by Thomas as possible friendly amendments, then Jeff (as proposer) and you, Wolf-Ulrich (as seconder), will have to consider if you will accept them as such. I hope this helps. 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 1:34 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>, "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 > Thanks Mary, > > could you please clarify on how the amendment process is to be dealt with > according to the GNSO rules? > > Thanks > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > From: Mary Wong <mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:01 PM > To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx> ; Neuman, Jeff > <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> ; '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 > > 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:
smime.p7s
|