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

[Maria Farrell]

FYI

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
Date: 19 November 2013 13:50
Subject: RE: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion - MEETING TODAY
To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>


All,



Please be aware and / or reminded that we have a session *today* for
councillors / group & constituency leadership to come together to discuss
this and any other issues ahead of tomorrow?s council meeting.



Glen will shortly confirm / re-confirm to the list when & where the meeting
will be held.



Jonathan



*From:* WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de]
*Sent:* 19 November 2013 12:16
*To:* Neuman, Jeff; 'Thomas Rickert'; GNSO Council List; Jonathan Robinson
*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 <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>

*Sent:* Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:24 AM

*To:* 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert at anwaelte.de> ; GNSO Council
List<council at gnso.icann.org>; Jonathan
Robinson <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<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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131119/e6a6ca63/attachment-0001.html>