[ispcp] Fw: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
redline version of the amended IGO/INGO motion FYI 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 Attachment:
REDLINE MOTION 19 November.docx |