Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
Jeff, thanks for your e-mail. Am 19.11.2013 um 14:48 schrieb "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. Yes - it shall be moved to the consent agenda. > 2. Vote on all of the “consensus recommendations” as a package; and Yes. > 3. Remove former section 5 and vote on that separately from #1 and #2. > Yes. We will keep 2 and 3 in one motion, but have two votes. Thanks for considering this friendly. Thomas > 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 > > * 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 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
|