Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion

["WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Mary, very helpful!


Wolf-Ulrich



From: Mary Wong 
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 2:34 PM
To: WUKnoben ; Neuman, Jeff ; 'Thomas Rickert' ; GNSO Council List ; Jonathan 
Robinson 
Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion

My apologies if I misunderstood your question, Wolf-Ulrich! 

Basically, in that specific instance then the Council would first vote on the 
proposed amendment(s). If the vote on that fails, then you would vote on the 
original unamended motion. Although this procedure is not spelled out in the 
Bylaws or Operating Procedures, this has been the custom and has been done 
several times, including in the recent past.

Again, 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 2:25 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,

  to be more specific: what if the amendments are not seen as friendly? What 
are the options for the council?

  Best regards

  Wolf-Ulrich



  From: Mary Wong 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:49 PM
  To: WUKnoben ; Neuman, Jeff ; 'Thomas Rickert' ; GNSO Council List ; Jonathan 
Robinson 
  Subject: 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 
    Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:01 PM
    To: WUKnoben ; Neuman, Jeff ; 'Thomas Rickert' ; GNSO Council List ; 
Jonathan Robinson 
    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 constituencies’ discussion to have a redline 
version of the motion available.
      Could staff please provide it?

      Thanks
      Wolf-Ulrich



      From: Neuman, Jeff 
      Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:24 AM
      To: 'Thomas Rickert' ; GNSO Council List ; Jonathan Robinson 
      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.

       

      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: 

        a.. 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. 
 
        b.. 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. 
        c.. 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). 
        d.. 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. 
        e.. 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