RE: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

As the maker of the motion, here is what I would consider friendly.  I need to 
spend some time reviewing to see whether this  document achieves this, so am 
not ready right now as I am in the middle of the gTLD Registries meeting:


1.        Remove SCI portion of the motion and vote on that separately.

2.       Vote on all of the "consensus recommendations" as a package; and

3.       Remove former section 5 and vote on that separately from #1 and #2.

I noticed here #1 was done.  I am unclear if #2 and #3 are what Thomas is 
recommending as part of the friendly amendment.  If that is what is being 
proposed, then I would consider it friendly.

Please confirm.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Registry Services

From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx]
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<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>

* One World. One Internet. *

From: WUKnoben 
<wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Reply-To: WUKnoben 
<wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 2:25 PM
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>>, "Neuman, Jeff" 
<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>, 'Thomas Rickert' 
<rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, GNSO Council List 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Jonathan Robinson 
<jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:49 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 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<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>

* One World. One Internet. *

From: WUKnoben 
<wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Reply-To: WUKnoben 
<wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:34 PM
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>>, "Neuman, Jeff" 
<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>, 'Thomas Rickert' 
<rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, GNSO Council List 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Jonathan Robinson 
<jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>

* One World. One Internet. *

From: WUKnoben 
<wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Reply-To: WUKnoben 
<wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 12:16 PM
To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>, 
'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, GNSO 
Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Jonathan 
Robinson <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<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> 
[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:

  *   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