I obviously have no vote on this matter, but I would hate to see Council take an action (or inaction) that would prevent the reconvened WG from discussing the merits of the changes. All the more so because both changes were essentially un-discussed during the original WG deliberations. At 09/07/2014 04:53 PM, avri wrote:
Hi
So it is correct to say that we need to, provisionally at least, approve of the amendments we are proposing.
I will find that hard to vote for based both on personal viewpoint and my understanding of ncsg perspectives.
avri
Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
-------- Original message -------- From: Mary Wong Date:07/09/2014 3:58 PM (GMT-05:00) To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Briefing Note on process for amending IGO/INGO policy recommendations
Dear all,
Attached please find a short Briefing Note outlining the process to be followed by the GNSO Council in invoking Section 16 of the PDP Manual, with respect to a possible modification of a GNSO policy recommendation. As we noted previously, we have checked with our colleagues in the legal department regarding questions such as voting thresholds, and we hope that the attached note is helpful for understanding how Section 16 will work.
Please note also that we have not included the actual proposed draft modifications or related motion in the Note or this email - the attached Note therefore deals purely with the process issue.
Thanks and cheers Mary
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Date: Wednesday, July 9, 2014 at 12:50 PM To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] IGO/RCRC - NGPC letter / briefing note to GAC?
I will await the staff briefing note, but my understanding of the rules is that Council passes particular changes on to the WG for their consideration. The WG can agree or disagree with them. If they agree, Council then needs to vote on whether to approve or not. Having passed the specific wording to the WG does not bind the Council to approve the changes. However, like any recommendation of a PDP WG, Council should have a good reason to not follow the WG's recommendations.
Regarding voting, I the threshold "should" be the same as was required to pass the original WG Recs, since these are yet more rec ofut of the PDP WG. However, I current wording may make that subject to interpretation.
Alan
At 09/07/2014 12:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
As another meeting approaches, I return to my discomfort with the motion.
As I interpret the rules, we are to send changes that we wish to see made to the 'reconstituted' WG for reconsideration. I know that some have argued that we do not need to approve of them, we just send them on, but that is not the way I read the rules. Perhaps we need a legal opinion.
I have no objection to passing issues on to a WG for study and reconsideration. My problem is sending them on with prior council approval and I think that is what the current rules demand.
Also, what is the voting threshold for this motion. Is it a majority issue since it is not otherwise defined?
thanks
avri
On 26-Jun-14 10:12, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
The relevant Procedures:
16. Amendments or Modifications of Approved Policies Approved
GNSO Council policies may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council at any time prior to the final approval by the ICANN Board as follows:
1. The PDP Team is reconvened or, if disbanded, reformed, and should be consulted with regards to the proposed amendments or modifications;
2. The proposed amendments or modifications are posted for public comment for not less than thirty (30) days;
3. The GNSO Council approves of such amendments or modifications with a Supermajority Vote of both Houses in favour. Approved GNSO Council policies that have been adopted by the ICANN Board and have been implemented by ICANN Staff may only be amended by the initiation of a new PDP on the issue.
I interpret this as meaning we have to approve the wording of the amendments before sending them, as these will be the amendments the WG needs to either accept of reject. I do not see the procedure as allowing us to just send them topics to be discussed.
I must admit I am finding them all a bit hard to accept. I also must say I do not see any new evidence or arguments.
In terms of TMCH+50_Forever I do not see on what basis we could ever make such a decision as this was not ever a subject for the PDP in the first place.
Lastly, what is the voting threshold for this motion? Majority?
Super
Majority?
Finally, if this is going to become a regular occurrence, which would not surprise me, we should give consideration to asking the SCI to look at the subject after we have completed the project.
Thanks avri
On 23-Jun-14 16:58, Thomas Rickert wrote:
All, 1. Following up to the discussion we had on this subject, please find attached: (1) a draft motion setting out the background (in the Whereas clauses) and proposed steps the Council will take in relation to possibly modifying the GNSO¹s consensus recommendations on RCRC and IGO acronym identifier protections in response to the NGPC letter of 16 June; (2) a document containing the actual proposed modification for the Council to discuss forwarding on to the reconvened WG and including some background information such as the actual original WG recommendation and GAC advice; and (3) a comparison table showing the original WG recommendations and the proposed modifications side by side.
This is to inform your discussion with your respective groups in preparation for the public meeting on Wednesday. Of course, the motion will not be voted on till the first meeting following this London gathering, but we thought it might be useful for the Council to have all the necessary documentation at the first possible opportunity.
Please note also that we have not run the final versions of the recommended proposal by our legal colleagues as in the interests of time we thought it important for you to be able to review these early!
Kudos to policy staff, especially Mary, for turning this around at such short notice and prepare the paperwork. Thanks so much!
2. During the GAC/GNSO session (which I think was an excellent meeting), there was only little time to discuss this issue. Having spoken to a few people afterwards, including a GAC member, I was wondering whether the current status and the suggested actions are sufficiently clear. In particular, I am afraid that there is the misconception that a full PDP might be required for changes to the recommendations. I would therefore suggest we send a small briefing note to the GAC (we = Jonathan :-). Chances would be that the GAC could consider this for its communiqué.
*** Dear Heather, following up to yesterday's GAC / GNSO session, we would like to briefly outline both the current status as well as the next steps with respect to the IGO/RCRC question.
1. The GNSO Council has been approached by the NGPC with a letter of June 16th, 2014 suggesting that indefinite claims service to provide notice to the organization in question is offered for the designations in question whenever such designation has been registered. Currently, the GNSO policy recommendations provide for a 90 days claims service.
The GNSO Council will continue its discussion on this subject during the public meeting on Wednesday. Should the GNSO Council decide so, the course of action would be to reconvene the PDP WG to consider this very question and get back to the GNSO Council. We would like to stress that this consultation process would presumably take a short period of time. The GNSO's PDP Manual offers such process. This would not be a PDP.
2. The second suggestion is to modify certain aspects of the URS to enable its use by IGOs and the development of rules and procedures for an arbitration process to resolve claims of abuse of IGO names and acronyms. We note that this work is already under way with the PDP that has been initiated by the GNSO Council at its last meeting on June 5th, 2014. Thus, no action is required with respect to potential modifications of GNSO Council policy recommendations as the aspect of working on potential modifications of curative rights protection mechanisms was already included in the set of recommendations the GNSO Council unanimously adopted last year. While the work on the PDP is conducted, the temporary protections remain in place, as the NGPC confirmed.
We welcome your and the IGO Coalition's collaboration on these matters.
Yours sincerely,
***
Any thoughts or suggestions?
Best, Thomas
___________________________________________________________ Thomas Rickert, Attorney at Law Director Names & Numbers
------------------------------------- eco - Verband der deutschen Internetwirtschaft e.V.
LichtstraÃe 43h 50825 Köln
Fon: +49 (0) 221 - 70 00 48 - 0 Fax: +49 (0) 221 - 70 00 48 - 111 E-Mail: thomas.rickert@eco.de <mailto:thomas.rickert@eco.de> Web: http://www.eco.de
---------------------------------------------------
eco - Verband der deutschen Internetwirtschaft e.V. Geschäftsführer: Harald A. Summa Vorstand: Prof. Michael Rotert (Vorsitzender), Oliver Süme (stv. Vorsitzender), Klaus Landefeld, Thomas von Bülow, Felix Höger Vereinsregister: Amtsgericht Köln, VR 14478 Sitz des Vereins: Köln