September 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

Abstentions
by Philip Sheppard 25 Sep '09

25 Sep '09

Please note some wise words from Steve M.sent to the OSC list. _____ From: owner-gnso-osc(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 12:11 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-osc(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] FW: Further Council Ops Procedures Thoughts I am afraid we are trying to square the circle on this abstention issue. Abstentions may occur for a lot of reasons. But if one occurs in order to avoid a conflict of interest problem, then we cannot treat it as a functional "no" vote -- which we do if we insist that the denominator in calculating a voting threshold must always be the total number of people seated in the House or council. Let's assume that on a motion before the council, a councillor's financial interests will be directly benefited by defeat of the motion. The councillor should refrain from voting on (or even from participating in the discussion of) the motion. Let's assume the council consists of 10 people and that a majority vote is needed for the motion. However, if the councillor abstains for this reason, then if 5 vote for and 4 against, the motion fails. Abstention will have achieved exactly the result that a conflict of interest policy should avoid at all costs -- the action of the councillor has directly benefitted his financial interest. If the councillor is able to truly abstain, so that his presence is not counted for purposes of achieving the voting threshold, then the vote (5-4) reflects the views of the majority of council members who were allowed (in accordance with conflict of interest policy) to vote, and should be enough to carry the motion. The same scenario could play out almost no matter what is the voting threshold required or the number of eligible voters. I emphasize that many abstentions will not be for conflict reasons -- quite commonly, it will be because the constituency/stakeholder group could not reach a position on the issue, or an issue arises suddenly and the councillor has decided that she will not vote absent instructions from her constituency/SG. There is less of a problem counting the abstention for purposes of a voting threshold in this case -- though it still may not be a good idea. But there would need to be an exception to this general rule for situations in which an abstention is dictated by conflict of interest rules. Steve

3 4

RE: Absentee Ballot on motion Requesting Issues report on vertical Integration and Registry/Registrar cross-ownership
by Adrian Kinderis 25 Sep '09

25 Sep '09

-----Original Message----- From: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@icann.org] Sent: Friday, 25 September 2009 2:22 AM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Absentee Ballot on motion Requesting Issues report on vertical Integration and Registry/Registrar cross-ownership Dear Adrian, In keeping with the proxy vote procedures, all councilors who were absent from the Council meeting today, Thursday 24 September 2009 are allowed an absentee ballot. Councilors noted as absent: Mike Rodenbaugh, Ute Decker, Tony Holmes, Carlos Souza, Jordi Iparraguirre, Adrian Kinderis, Terry Davis. Below, please find a ballot with an option to vote, YES, NO or ABSTAIN. The current bylaws require a reason for abstaining on a policy recommendation, so please indicate your reason for abstaining. PLEASE NOTE: There is one motion. Please return the ballot, that is, indicate your preference with an X and send the lines preceded with *asterisks directly to the GNSO Council mailing list <council(a)gnso.icann.org> * On the motion Requesting an Issues report on vertical Integration and Registry/Registrar cross-ownership I vote: * [ ] Yes * [X] No * [ ] Abstain * Password: white-0 This process should be completed within 72 hours of the meeting which ended at 15:15 UTC, Thursday September 24, 2009 Completed ballots are due NLT 15:15 UTC Sunday, 27 September 2009. (08:15 PDT, 11:15 EDT, 12:15 Rio de Janeiro, 16:15 London, 17:15 CEST, 01:15 Melbourne Monday 28 September 2009 Motion Requesting an Issues report on vertical Integration and Registry/Registrar cross-ownership Motion proposed by Mary Wong and seconded by Philip Sheppard Whereas, Recommendation 19 of the GNSO policy authorizing the new gTLD process states: "Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars;" Whereas, opening up the market to many new TLD operators may call into question some of the assumptions on which the separation of registry and registrar functions is based; Whereas, economic research commissioned by ICANN staff also suggests that changes in these assumptions might be justified; Whereas, the new gTLD policies passed by the Council do not provide any guidance regarding the proper approach to cross ownership and vertical integration, but instead implicitly suggest that the status quo be left in place; Resolved: the GNSO Council hereby requests the preparation of an Issues Report for delivery within 45 days on future changes in vertical integration and cross-ownership between gTLD registrars and registries, to assist in determining whether a PDP should be initiated regarding what policies would best serve to promote competition and to protect users and registrants. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ccNSO update
by Olga Cavalli 25 Sep '09

25 Sep '09

Hi, .tz Tanzania is now member nr 96 of the ccNSO. Regards, Olga

1 0

Fwd: Looks like the JPA will expire next week
by Alan Greenberg 24 Sep '09

24 Sep '09

Don't think that this has been sent to the Council list. Thanks to Bob Bruen for this pointer. Alan >The Economist is reporting that ICANN will not have the JPA renewed. A 4 >page letter has been signed (affirmation of commitments). There is some >international oversight committee going in place, with four panels and the >US will have reps on only one. > >ICANN has said nothing about this and there is no word yet on who in the >US government sign the letter. > >http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14517430

1 0

RE: Absentee Ballot on motion Requesting Issues report on vertical Integration and Registry/Registrar cross-ownership
by Terry L Davis, P.E. 24 Sep '09

24 Sep '09

Council Members * On the motion Requesting an Issues report on vertical Integration and Registry/Registrar cross-ownership I vote: * [x] Yes * [ ] No * [ ] Abstain * Password: silver-1 Take care Terry

1 0

MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday, 24 September 2009
by Glen de Saint Géry 24 Sep '09

24 Sep '09

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 24 September 2009. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20090924.mp3 on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/index.html#sep Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: Absentee Ballot on motion Requesting Issues report on vertical Integration and Registry/Registrar cross-ownership
by Glen de Saint Géry 24 Sep '09

24 Sep '09

Forwarded From: Mike Rodenbaugh * On the motion Requesting an Issues report on vertical Integration and Registry/Registrar cross-ownership I vote: * [XX] Yes * [ ] No * [ ] Abstain * Password: black-1 Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Council Chair Election Process
by Gomes, Chuck 24 Sep '09

24 Sep '09

Here is the suggested plan I sent to the Council list yesterday regarding advance steps that we could take to identify a proposed chair prior to the end of the vice chair nomination period. 1. Each SG should identify a lead spokesperson who would be the primary representatives of their interests in the process and would also serve as facilitators to keep the process moving; this would not have to exclude other participants and/or alternates if desired. Either one spokesperson should be identified as the House spokesperson or the two spokespersons should serve as co-spokespersons for the House, however the House decides. The spokespersons need not be Councilors. (The sooner this happens the sooner step 2 can begin.) 2. The SGs in each House should identify possible chair candidates and communicate them to the other SG in the House. Chair candidates may be any Councilors including NCAs and, if possible, NCAs could be involved in the process. During this process, collaboration among the two SGs should be encouraged as well as collaboration with the SGs in the other House if desired. (This could literally start happening now.) 3. The two SGs in each House should attempt to reach agreement regarding support for one nominee along with involvement of the NCAs as possible. If it is not possible to reach agreement, they could collaborate with the SGs in the other House to possibly find out if any of the candidates have greater chances of support from the other House. 4. As soon as a House identifies its nominee, it should be communicated to the other House and a Candidate Statement should be requested. If it is not possible to reach agreement on one nominee, then the House should consider whether the nominee from the other House may be acceptable; if so, then that candidate would be the proposed chair. If not, then the two Houses should consider whether there is anyway to break the impasse and obtain 60% approval from each House (5 votes of 7 for the Contracted Parties House and 8 out of 13 for the Non-contracted Parties House) for any candidate; if not, then the procedures for continuing the process should be initiated as defined in the Council Operating Procedures and the vice chairs will need to be elected before the chair per the Council Operating Procedures. (To comply with the plan above, this step should be completed as soon as possible but probably no later than 21 October, the latter which would allow two days for vice chair nominations.) 5. The vice chair nomination process should begin immediately after step 4. 6. If a proposed chair candidate is identified, the candidate's statement should be publicly posted NLT 23 October 2009. 7. If a proposed chair candidate is identified, the SGs in each House along with the House NCA if known should ratify the identification of the chair candidate for Council approval on 28 October. (Ideally, this should happen before step 5 but probably no later than 23 October.) 8. House elections of vice chairs would occur either on Saturday morning in Seoul (Oct. 24) or on Constituency Day in Seoul (27 Oct.). 9. If a proposed chair was identified in step 4 and ratified in step 7, the new bicameral Council would vote to approve the chair on 28 October; if not, the vice chairs would co-chair the Council as defined in the Council Operating Procedures. We of course can change any of the above as we see fit and I welcome suggestions in that regard. Assuming that there is no objection to steps 1 & 2 above, I would like to encourage each SG to quickly identify a lead spokesperson (or lead spokespersons) as suggested in step 1 and communicate that info to this list. Also, I think it would be helpful if each SG would begin identifying possible chair candidates for consideration in their House as suggested in step 2. Thanks for everyone's cooperation. Chuck

1 0

Update on JIG
by Edmon Chung 24 Sep '09

24 Sep '09

Hi Everyone, A quick update on the JIG (Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Group): - ccNSO had more than 5 volunteers for the group and therefore is in the process of deciding which 5 to nominate to the group - In the meantime, Jane and I had extended invitations to different individuals in other parts of the ICANN community (e.g. GAC/SSAC/ALAC) to solicit their participation in the group Edmon

1 0

Abstentions
by Philip Sheppard 24 Sep '09

24 Sep '09

In case of interest (and sorry to be posting so much on this) the point about abstentions not counting as a vote is standard practise in all other international organisations. The definitive rules of procedure in international relations are those of the UN General Assembly; these rules date back in their original version to a codification of customary Rules of Procedure which was made for the Congress of Vienna early in the 19th century. The Rules have been continually amended and improved ever since. Robert's Rules of Order and all other recognised rules of procedure are all derived from the UN General Assembly Rules. http://documents.un.org/mother.asp Philip

3 4