Just to be clear chuck, stephane's motion is indeed to initiate a PDP. Just not right now.... It was a motion only to defer not eliminate. Sent from my iPhone On 23/01/2010, at 5:16, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Note that there are two competing motions regarding whether or not a PDP should be initiated regarding vertical integration of registries and registrars for new gTLDs, one made by Stephane and seconded by Adrian and one made by Mike and seconded by Debbie (see <https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?28_january_2010_motions> https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?28_january_2010_motions). After careful analysis and some consultation with others, I have come to the conclusion that the only motion we need to consider is Mike's motion to initiate a PDP. My rationale is as follows: * If we dealt with Stephane's motion to not initiate a PDP first, even if it passed, we would still have to act on the other motion and I think it is theoretically possible that both motions could pass. * Whether Mike's motion passes or not, there would be no need to vote on Stephane's motion, thereby making Stephane's motion unnecessary; a failure of Mike's motion would have the same effect as passing Stephane's motion and passage of Mike's motion would override passage of Stephane's motion because we have specifically defined voting thresholds for initiating a PDP, which I do not believe we could ignore. If anyone disagrees with my reasoning, please speak up. Stephane, if my logic is valid, you may want to consider withdrawing your motion, but I will leave that to you and Adrian, who seconded it. Whatever we decide, Stephane's motion would require a majority of each house and Mike's would require either 33% of each house or 66% of one house. Chuck