[PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion

Tue Nov 19 19:56:16 EET 2013

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 
Hi Robin - I am in the meeting now to get our constituencies' advice on
this :)
Joy
On 20/11/2013 6:53 a.m., Robin Gross wrote:
> So, NCSG GNSO Councilors, how do you plan to vote on this motion?
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>
> On Nov 19, 2013, at 9:49 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>
>> FYI.
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> *From: *Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>
>>> *Subject: **Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion*
>>> *Date: *November 19, 2013 at 1:01:34 PM GMT-3
>>> *To: *WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>>, "Neuman, Jeff"
<Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us <mailto:Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>>, "'Thomas
Rickert'" <rickert at anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>>, GNSO
Council List <council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>,
Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com
<mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>>
>>>
>>> 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 at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
>>>
>>> * One World. One Internet. *
>>>
>>> From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>>
>>> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>>
>>> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 12:16 PM
>>> To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us
<mailto:Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert at anwaelte.de
<mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org
<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>, Jonathan Robinson
<jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com <mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>>
>>> 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 at neustar.us>
>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:24 AM
>>>> *To:* 'Thomas Rickert' <mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de> ; GNSO Council
List <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org> ; Jonathan Robinson
<mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
>>>> *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 at gnso.icann.org
<mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org>
[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] *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
>>>> 
>> <REDLINE MOTION 19 November.docx>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
 
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSi6ZAAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqpkkH/jPWc8ZacFzYdghRgIh1/0Om
8+CzAsPWlZAXSo5MX/gDKg40dBtCLHBw7Yo0oElupKm3djW3qgpqM1fva08EQ+j4
mWuego4XtgfYFwiDKDD7tpHu2KTlw67A9nWxjszHastAFmyBVADI62KEGeb7UM27
EtqegNXIpaAsBpbfWSBcI7b9dylzU3aVGeg3J2HbVgCAa0QPQecfuaocFuLdLDGb
HEaIF4/1N9ud9j8Wh8SdnVgtH55MFwvo++NACeU8eAJqI9Zi8lhn4+xdL6eMT2cQ
G2bW2BCPepliQo7NUV0Yh4cPSuUKpsHkHQAqMBFfuYRjHZRCIGgsOo/4BoOTelw=
=zSKH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131120/72708f56/attachment.html>