RE: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment
I think it's pretty clear. If there is a motion with two resolves that each require different threshholds the Council cannot decide on its own to apply something different. I didn't think the RAP motion was that difficult to deal with even with two resolves with different thresholds. If the motion got at least a simple majority of both houses then both resolves pass, if it got less than a simple majority but at least what is required for an issues report then only the second resolve passes. If it didn't get at least that neither passes. But given the confusion this has caused I will never do it again. So as I already said I am fine with what Jeff suggests and consider it a friendly amendment. Unfortunately, I cannot accept Zahid's proposed amendment as friendly. While registrars are generally in favor of BPs, it is not appropriate to request an issues report on that since it is not a policy issue. In fact, it is not even a Council issue. Registrars would likely accept an amendment where the Council acknowledges that aspect of the recommendations and asks that the Contracted parties take the lead in developing such BPs. That's really about all the Council can do on it. If the Contracted parties fall short in getting it done, then they risk each of the issues recommended for BP's coming back up at Council as possible policy initiatives. Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment From: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Date: Tue, February 01, 2011 3:43 am To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> Cc: owner-council@gnso.icann.org, council@gnso.icann.org
I know the text and my read of it is not the same as yours.
As I think this is a crucial discussion, because I don't think our bylaws are always as clear as they should be, I would welcome other input on this.
The text says: Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Council Operating Rules and Procedures approved by the Board, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each house. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions:
And then goes on to define the thresholds. So it talks about thresholds to pass a motion, NOT individual resolve clauses.
The solution you propose is one that could work. Another is to apply the lowest threshold to the full motion. Yet another is to split motions that have multiple resolves which taken separately would have different thresholds apply.
I would like to see some concrete guidance in the bylaws on what to do in those cases, and I think that's something we may want to look at adding in the bylaws. Over the past few months, as we've found that texts coming out of the 2 GNSO improvements Steering Committees are not always to be easy to apply, we've asked the SCs to look at them again.
I would also like the same desire for clarity to apply to our bylaws and op procs.
Stéphane
Le 31 janv. 2011 à 23:11, Tim Ruiz a écrit : The bylaws are clear on the thresholds. If a motion contains resolves that require different thresholds to pass then take a vote and apply the threshholds as the bylaws require to each resolve, it doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.
Of course, there will be situations where not all Council members are comfortable with voting on a mixed threshold motion for various reasons. In that event, I don't see any issue with proceeding as Jeff suggests.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment From: Stéphane Van Gelder Date: Mon, January 31, 2011 4:05 pm To: tim@godaddy.com Cc: owner-council@gnso.icann.org, "GNSO Council"
Help me out Tim. Where in the rules does it say that thresholds should apply to anything but a motion as a whole?
I am happy to apply whatever strategy looks best here. Do you agree with Jeff's amendment as a way forward?
Stéphane
Le 31 janv. 2011 à 22:59, tim@godaddy.com a écrit : I don't agree with that assessment. We had a group work hard on that for a long time and came with this structure and the theshholds. They are integral parts of each other. The Council cannot change that and should not change that any more so than it would take it upon itself to change a consensus policy.
Tim From: Stéphane Van Gelder
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:54:04 +0100 To: Cc: ; GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment
There is nothing in our procedures that would prevent us from considering the whole motion with the lowest applicable threshold to one of its parts. However, in this case, it does look like it will be difficult to consider this motion as one whole.
Jeff has suggested an amendment to split the motion. That would seem an useful solution to consider.
Stéphane
Le 31 janv. 2011 à 19:27, tim@godaddy.com a écrit : I object since it may be amended, friendly or otherwise. And if we apply the appropriate to threshold to each resolve it will prevent any questions later. The entire GNSO community was involved in setting those thresholds, I think it would be inappropriate for the Council to change them or apply them inconsistently without consultation.
Tim From: Stéphane Van Gelder
Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:17:34 +0100 To: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment
On this motion, you will remember that during our last meeting we discussed the voting thresholds for this motion.
While the Council Leaders were working to prepare for the meeting, we identified the fact that the original 2 resolve clauses carried different thresholds. The 1st clause has a standard threshold while the 2nd clause carries the lower threshold that goes with issues report.
I suggested we apply the lowest voting threshold to the whole motion. There was no opposition to that during the meeting.
However, as the motion was deferred and now may actually include a 3rd resolve, I would like to ask the question again. Is the Council Ok with applying the lowest threshold to the full motion?
Stéphane
Le 28 janv. 2011 à 10:16, Zahid Jamil a écrit : Dear Mary, Thanks for your queries here are responses to your questions. Q1: First, how does the list of topics relate to both group's consensus recommendations
Ans: It's the group's highest ranked recommendation (among those not considered low-hanging fruit) and topics are taken verbatim from RAP DT letter
Q2: secondly, do these need an Issues Report (which usually prefaces a vote for/against a full PDP)?
Ans: no because these are best practices and not consensus policy Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025 Fax: +92 21 35655026 www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited.
From: Mary Wong [mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu] Sent: 27 January 2011 17:15 To: Zahid Jamil; Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: 'GNSO Council' Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment
Hi - I had a couple of questions for Zahid and the BC - unfortunately I haven't had the chance to go back to the RAP WG final report, or refer to the RAP Implementation DT's letter and rankings/recommendations but here goes. First, how does the list of topics relate to both group's consensus recommendations, and, secondly, do these need an Issues Report (which usually prefaces a vote for/against a full PDP)?
Thanks
Mary
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>>
From: Stéphane Van Gelder To: Zahid Jamil CC: "'GNSO Council'" Date: 1/27/2011 5:59 AM Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment Thanks Zahid.
Tim, Jeff, do you accept the amendment as friendly?
Stéphane Le 26 janv. 2011 à 19:22, Zahid Jamil a écrit :
Dear All,
On behalf of the BC I would like to propose the following amendment to the Council motion at item 6 (RAP). In the motion (deferred from the previous Council call -https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?3_february_motions) the following may be added as Resolved 3:
RESOLVED #3, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the illicit use of domain names in accordance with Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report. This effort should consider (but not be limited the following subjects:
Practices for identifying stolen credentialsPractices for identifying and investigating common forms of malicious use (such as malware and phishing)Creating anti-abuse terms of service for inclusion in Registrar-Registrant agreements, and for use by TLD operators.Identifying compromised/hacked domains versus domain registered by abusersPractices for suspending domain namesAccount access security managementSecurity resources of use or interest to registrars and registriesSurvey registrars and registries to determine practices being used, and their adoption rates.Sincerely,
Zahid Jamil
Barrister-at-law
Jamil & Jamil
Barristers-at-law
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Cell: +923008238230
Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025
Fax: +92 21 35655026
www.jamilandjamil.com
Notice / Disclaimer
This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited.
As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname@law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu
Thanks Tim. Glen, please update the wiki to show Zahid's amendment as a separate text. I will update the agenda to include the fact that we are voting on each resolve clause separately. If someone objects to that, please say so asap. Stéphane Le 1 févr. 2011 à 12:40, Tim Ruiz a écrit :
I think it's pretty clear. If there is a motion with two resolves that each require different threshholds the Council cannot decide on its own to apply something different.
I didn't think the RAP motion was that difficult to deal with even with two resolves with different thresholds. If the motion got at least a simple majority of both houses then both resolves pass, if it got less than a simple majority but at least what is required for an issues report then only the second resolve passes. If it didn't get at least that neither passes.
But given the confusion this has caused I will never do it again. So as I already said I am fine with what Jeff suggests and consider it a friendly amendment.
Unfortunately, I cannot accept Zahid's proposed amendment as friendly. While registrars are generally in favor of BPs, it is not appropriate to request an issues report on that since it is not a policy issue. In fact, it is not even a Council issue. Registrars would likely accept an amendment where the Council acknowledges that aspect of the recommendations and asks that the Contracted parties take the lead in developing such BPs.
That's really about all the Council can do on it. If the Contracted parties fall short in getting it done, then they risk each of the issues recommended for BP's coming back up at Council as possible policy initiatives.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment From: Stéphane Van Gelder Date: Tue, February 01, 2011 3:43 am To: "Tim Ruiz" Cc: owner-council@gnso.icann.org, council@gnso.icann.org
I know the text and my read of it is not the same as yours.
As I think this is a crucial discussion, because I don't think our bylaws are always as clear as they should be, I would welcome other input on this.
The text says: Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Council Operating Rules and Procedures approved by the Board, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each house. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions:
And then goes on to define the thresholds. So it talks about thresholds to pass a motion, NOT individual resolve clauses.
The solution you propose is one that could work. Another is to apply the lowest threshold to the full motion. Yet another is to split motions that have multiple resolves which taken separately would have different thresholds apply.
I would like to see some concrete guidance in the bylaws on what to do in those cases, and I think that's something we may want to look at adding in the bylaws. Over the past few months, as we've found that texts coming out of the 2 GNSO improvements Steering Committees are not always to be easy to apply, we've asked the SCs to look at them again.
I would also like the same desire for clarity to apply to our bylaws and op procs.
Stéphane
Le 31 janv. 2011 à 23:11, Tim Ruiz a écrit : The bylaws are clear on the thresholds. If a motion contains resolves that require different thresholds to pass then take a vote and apply the threshholds as the bylaws require to each resolve, it doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.
Of course, there will be situations where not all Council members are comfortable with voting on a mixed threshold motion for various reasons. In that event, I don't see any issue with proceeding as Jeff suggests.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment From: Stéphane Van Gelder Date: Mon, January 31, 2011 4:05 pm To: tim@godaddy.com Cc: owner-council@gnso.icann.org, "GNSO Council"
Help me out Tim. Where in the rules does it say that thresholds should apply to anything but a motion as a whole?
I am happy to apply whatever strategy looks best here. Do you agree with Jeff's amendment as a way forward?
Stéphane
Le 31 janv. 2011 à 22:59, tim@godaddy.com a écrit : I don't agree with that assessment. We had a group work hard on that for a long time and came with this structure and the theshholds. They are integral parts of each other. The Council cannot change that and should not change that any more so than it would take it upon itself to change a consensus policy.
Tim From: Stéphane Van Gelder
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:54:04 +0100 To: Cc: ; GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment
There is nothing in our procedures that would prevent us from considering the whole motion with the lowest applicable threshold to one of its parts. However, in this case, it does look like it will be difficult to consider this motion as one whole.
Jeff has suggested an amendment to split the motion. That would seem an useful solution to consider.
Stéphane
Le 31 janv. 2011 à 19:27, tim@godaddy.com a écrit : I object since it may be amended, friendly or otherwise. And if we apply the appropriate to threshold to each resolve it will prevent any questions later. The entire GNSO community was involved in setting those thresholds, I think it would be inappropriate for the Council to change them or apply them inconsistently without consultation.
Tim From: Stéphane Van Gelder
Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:17:34 +0100 To: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment
On this motion, you will remember that during our last meeting we discussed the voting thresholds for this motion.
While the Council Leaders were working to prepare for the meeting, we identified the fact that the original 2 resolve clauses carried different thresholds. The 1st clause has a standard threshold while the 2nd clause carries the lower threshold that goes with issues report.
I suggested we apply the lowest voting threshold to the whole motion. There was no opposition to that during the meeting.
However, as the motion was deferred and now may actually include a 3rd resolve, I would like to ask the question again. Is the Council Ok with applying the lowest threshold to the full motion?
Stéphane
Le 28 janv. 2011 à 10:16, Zahid Jamil a écrit : Dear Mary, Thanks for your queries here are responses to your questions. Q1: First, how does the list of topics relate to both group's consensus recommendations
Ans: It's the group's highest ranked recommendation (among those not considered low-hanging fruit) and topics are taken verbatim from RAP DT letter
Q2: secondly, do these need an Issues Report (which usually prefaces a vote for/against a full PDP)?
Ans: no because these are best practices and not consensus policy Sincerely,
Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025 Fax: +92 21 35655026 www.jamilandjamil.com
Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited.
From: Mary Wong [mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu] Sent: 27 January 2011 17:15 To: Zahid Jamil; Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: 'GNSO Council' Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment
Hi - I had a couple of questions for Zahid and the BC - unfortunately I haven't had the chance to go back to the RAP WG final report, or refer to the RAP Implementation DT's letter and rankings/recommendations but here goes. First, how does the list of topics relate to both group's consensus recommendations, and, secondly, do these need an Issues Report (which usually prefaces a vote for/against a full PDP)?
Thanks
Mary
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>>
From: Stéphane Van Gelder To: Zahid Jamil CC: "'GNSO Council'" Date: 1/27/2011 5:59 AM Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment Thanks Zahid.
Tim, Jeff, do you accept the amendment as friendly?
Stéphane Le 26 janv. 2011 à 19:22, Zahid Jamil a écrit :
Dear All,
On behalf of the BC I would like to propose the following amendment to the Council motion at item 6 (RAP). In the motion (deferred from the previous Council call -https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?3_february_motions) the following may be added as Resolved 3:
RESOLVED #3, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the illicit use of domain names in accordance with Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report. This effort should consider (but not be limited the following subjects:
Practices for identifying stolen credentialsPractices for identifying and investigating common forms of malicious use (such as malware and phishing)Creating anti-abuse terms of service for inclusion in Registrar-Registrant agreements, and for use by TLD operators.Identifying compromised/hacked domains versus domain registered by abusersPractices for suspending domain namesAccount access security managementSecurity resources of use or interest to registrars and registriesSurvey registrars and registries to determine practices being used, and their adoption rates.Sincerely,
Zahid Jamil
Barrister-at-law
Jamil & Jamil
Barristers-at-law
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Cell: +923008238230
Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025
Fax: +92 21 35655026
www.jamilandjamil.com
Notice / Disclaimer
This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited.
As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname@law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu
Tim, I agree with your understanding that BP should be an initiative of Contracted Parties. But what if this initiative never materializes? If not an Issues Report, what kind of incentive should be given by the Council so that the Contracted Parties assume their responsibility in taking this effort seriously? Jaime Wagner <mailto:jaime@powerself.com.br> jaime@powerself.com.br Direto (51) 3219-5955 Cel (51) 8126-0916 Geral (51) 3233-3551 DDG: 0800-703-6366 <http://www.powerself.com.br/> www.powerself.com.br De: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Em nome de Tim Ruiz Enviada em: terça-feira, 1 de fevereiro de 2011 09:40 Para: council@gnso.icann.org Assunto: RE: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment I think it's pretty clear. If there is a motion with two resolves that each require different threshholds the Council cannot decide on its own to apply something different. I didn't think the RAP motion was that difficult to deal with even with two resolves with different thresholds. If the motion got at least a simple majority of both houses then both resolves pass, if it got less than a simple majority but at least what is required for an issues report then only the second resolve passes. If it didn't get at least that neither passes. But given the confusion this has caused I will never do it again. So as I already said I am fine with what Jeff suggests and consider it a friendly amendment. Unfortunately, I cannot accept Zahid's proposed amendment as friendly. While registrars are generally in favor of BPs, it is not appropriate to request an issues report on that since it is not a policy issue. In fact, it is not even a Council issue. Registrars would likely accept an amendment where the Council acknowledges that aspect of the recommendations and asks that the Contracted parties take the lead in developing such BPs. That's really about all the Council can do on it. If the Contracted parties fall short in getting it done, then they risk each of the issues recommended for BP's coming back up at Council as possible policy initiatives. Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment From: Stéphane Van Gelder Date: Tue, February 01, 2011 3:43 am To: "Tim Ruiz" Cc: owner-council@gnso.icann.org, council@gnso.icann.org
I know the text and my read of it is not the same as yours.
As I think this is a crucial discussion, because I don't think our bylaws are always as clear as they should be, I would welcome other input on this.
The text says: Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Council Operating Rules and Procedures approved by the Board, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each house. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions:
And then goes on to define the thresholds. So it talks about thresholds to pass a motion, NOT individual resolve clauses.
The solution you propose is one that could work. Another is to apply the lowest threshold to the full motion. Yet another is to split motions that have multiple resolves which taken separately would have different thresholds apply.
I would like to see some concrete guidance in the bylaws on what to do in those cases, and I think that's something we may want to look at adding in the bylaws. Over the past few months, as we've found that texts coming out of the 2 GNSO improvements Steering Committees are not always to be easy to apply, we've asked the SCs to look at them again.
I would also like the same desire for clarity to apply to our bylaws and op procs.
Stéphane
Le 31 janv. 2011 à 23:11, Tim Ruiz a écrit : The bylaws are clear on the thresholds. If a motion contains resolves that require different thresholds to pass then take a vote and apply the threshholds as the bylaws require to each resolve, it doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.
Of course, there will be situations where not all Council members are comfortable with voting on a mixed threshold motion for various reasons. In that event, I don't see any issue with proceeding as Jeff suggests.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment From: Stéphane Van Gelder Date: Mon, January 31, 2011 4:05 pm To: tim@godaddy.com Cc: owner-council@gnso.icann.org, "GNSO Council"
Help me out Tim. Where in the rules does it say that thresholds should apply to anything but a motion as a whole?
I am happy to apply whatever strategy looks best here. Do you agree with Jeff's amendment as a way forward?
Stéphane
Le 31 janv. 2011 à 22:59, tim@godaddy.com a écrit : I don't agree with that assessment. We had a group work hard on that for a long time and came with this structure and the theshholds. They are integral parts of each other. The Council cannot change that and should not change that any more so than it would take it upon itself to change a consensus policy.
Tim From: Stéphane Van Gelder
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:54:04 +0100 To: Cc: ; GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment
There is nothing in our procedures that would prevent us from considering the whole motion with the lowest applicable threshold to one of its parts. However, in this case, it does look like it will be difficult to consider this motion as one whole.
Jeff has suggested an amendment to split the motion. That would seem an useful solution to consider.
Stéphane
Le 31 janv. 2011 à 19:27, tim@godaddy.com a écrit : I object since it may be amended, friendly or otherwise. And if we apply the appropriate to threshold to each resolve it will prevent any questions later. The entire GNSO community was involved in setting those thresholds, I think it would be inappropriate for the Council to change them or apply them inconsistently without consultation.
Tim From: Stéphane Van Gelder
Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:17:34 +0100 To: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment
On this motion, you will remember that during our last meeting we discussed the voting thresholds for this motion.
While the Council Leaders were working to prepare for the meeting, we identified the fact that the original 2 resolve clauses carried different thresholds. The 1st clause has a standard threshold while the 2nd clause carries the lower threshold that goes with issues report.
I suggested we apply the lowest voting threshold to the whole motion. There was no opposition to that during the meeting.
However, as the motion was deferred and now may actually include a 3rd resolve, I would like to ask the question again. Is the Council Ok with applying the lowest threshold to the full motion?
Stéphane
Le 28 janv. 2011 à 10:16, Zahid Jamil a écrit : Dear Mary, Thanks for your queries here are responses to your questions. Q1: First, how does the list of topics relate to both group's consensus recommendations
Ans: It's the group's highest ranked recommendation (among those not considered low-hanging fruit) and topics are taken verbatim from RAP DT letter
Q2: secondly, do these need an Issues Report (which usually prefaces a vote for/against a full PDP)?
Ans: no because these are best practices and not consensus policy Sincerely,
Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025 Fax: +92 21 35655026 www.jamilandjamil.com
Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited.
From: Mary Wong [mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu] Sent: 27 January 2011 17:15 To: Zahid Jamil; Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: 'GNSO Council' Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment
Hi - I had a couple of questions for Zahid and the BC - unfortunately I haven't had the chance to go back to the RAP WG final report, or refer to the RAP Implementation DT's letter and rankings/recommendations but here goes. First, how does the list of topics relate to both group's consensus recommendations, and, secondly, do these need an Issues Report (which usually prefaces a vote for/against a full PDP)?
Thanks
Mary
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>>
From: Stéphane Van Gelder To: Zahid Jamil CC: "'GNSO Council'" Date: 1/27/2011 5:59 AM Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment Thanks Zahid.
Tim, Jeff, do you accept the amendment as friendly?
Stéphane Le 26 janv. 2011 à 19:22, Zahid Jamil a écrit :
Dear All,
On behalf of the BC I would like to propose the following amendment to the Council motion at item 6 (RAP). In the motion (deferred from the previous Council call -https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?3_february_motions) the following may be added as Resolved 3:
RESOLVED #3, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the illicit use of domain names in accordance with Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report. This effort should consider (but not be limited the following subjects:
Practices for identifying stolen credentialsPractices for identifying and investigating common forms of malicious use (such as malware and phishing)Creating anti-abuse terms of service for inclusion in Registrar-Registrant agreements, and for use by TLD operators.Identifying compromised/hacked domains versus domain registered by abusersPractices for suspending domain namesAccount access security managementSecurity resources of use or interest to registrars and registriesSurvey registrars and registries to determine practices being used, and their adoption rates.Sincerely,
Zahid Jamil
Barrister-at-law
Jamil & Jamil
Barristers-at-law
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Cell: +923008238230
Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025
Fax: +92 21 35655026
www.jamilandjamil.com
Notice / Disclaimer
This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited.
As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname@law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu
participants (3)
-
Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
Tim Ruiz