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
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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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
Jeff, thanks for your e-mail. I have not asked you yet to accept this as a friendly amendment, but will do so in case the motion will remain as I have circulated it now. Nonetheless, it would be most helpful if you could indicate whether or not you would accept it as friendly. Thanks, Thomas Am 19.11.2013 um 11:24 schrieb "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>:
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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf OfThomas 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
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 Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:24 AM To: 'Thomas Rickert' ; GNSO Council List ; Jonathan Robinson 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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: a.. 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. b.. 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. c.. 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). d.. 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. e.. 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
Hello - the redlined version is attached. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org * One World. One Internet. * From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 12:16 PM To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
It would be helpful for the constituencies¹ discussion to have a redline version of the motion available. Could staff please provide it?
Thanks Wolf-Ulrich
From: Neuman, Jeff <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:24 AM To: 'Thomas Rickert' <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de> ; GNSO Council List <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> ; Jonathan Robinson <mailto:jonathan.robinson@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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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 <http://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 <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
Thanks Mary, could you please clarify on how the amendment process is to be dealt with according to the GNSO rules? Thanks Wolf-Ulrich From: Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:01 PM To: WUKnoben ; Neuman, Jeff ; 'Thomas Rickert' ; GNSO Council List ; Jonathan Robinson Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion Hello - the redlined version is attached. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org * One World. One Internet. * From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 12:16 PM To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> 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 Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:24 AM To: 'Thomas Rickert' ; GNSO Council List ; Jonathan Robinson 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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: a.. 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. b.. 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. c.. 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). d.. 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. e.. 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
Hello Wolf-Ulrich, If the changes to the motion (1) renumbering by (a) moving the Strong Support but Significant Opposition clause to the end, and (b) removing the clause about the SCI reviewing consensus levels; (2) proposing the removal of the SCI clause; and (3) proposing that the Council vote on the Strong Support but Significant Opposition recommendations (rather than the Council "reserving the right to deliberate [them] at the appropriate time" - are being proposed by Thomas as possible friendly amendments, then Jeff (as proposer) and you, Wolf-Ulrich (as seconder), will have to consider if you will accept them as such. I hope this helps. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org * One World. One Internet. * From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:34 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
Thanks Mary,
could you please clarify on how the amendment process is to be dealt with according to the GNSO rules?
Thanks
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Mary Wong <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:01 PM To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ; Neuman, Jeff <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> ; 'Thomas Rickert' <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de> ; GNSO Council List <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> ; Jonathan Robinson <mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
Hello - the redlined version is attached.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
* One World. One Internet. *
From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 12:16 PM To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
It would be helpful for the constituencies¹ discussion to have a redline version of the motion available.
Could staff please provide it?
Thanks Wolf-Ulrich
From: Neuman, Jeff <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:24 AM
To: 'Thomas Rickert' <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de> ; GNSO Council List <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> ; Jonathan Robinson <mailto:jonathan.robinson@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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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 <http://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 <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
Thanks Mary, to be more specific: what if the amendments are not seen as friendly? What are the options for the council? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:49 PM To: WUKnoben ; Neuman, Jeff ; 'Thomas Rickert' ; GNSO Council List ; Jonathan Robinson Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion Hello Wolf-Ulrich, If the changes to the motion – (1) renumbering by (a) moving the Strong Support but Significant Opposition clause to the end, and (b) removing the clause about the SCI reviewing consensus levels; (2) proposing the removal of the SCI clause; and (3) proposing that the Council vote on the Strong Support but Significant Opposition recommendations (rather than the Council "reserving the right to deliberate [them] at the appropriate time" - are being proposed by Thomas as possible friendly amendments, then Jeff (as proposer) and you, Wolf-Ulrich (as seconder), will have to consider if you will accept them as such. I hope this helps. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org * One World. One Internet. * From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:34 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion Thanks Mary, could you please clarify on how the amendment process is to be dealt with according to the GNSO rules? Thanks Wolf-Ulrich From: Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:01 PM To: WUKnoben ; Neuman, Jeff ; 'Thomas Rickert' ; GNSO Council List ; Jonathan Robinson Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion Hello - the redlined version is attached. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org * One World. One Internet. * From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 12:16 PM To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> 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 Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:24 AM To: 'Thomas Rickert' ; GNSO Council List ; Jonathan Robinson 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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: a.. 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. b.. 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. c.. 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). d.. 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. e.. 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
My apologies if I misunderstood your question, Wolf-Ulrich! Basically, in that specific instance then the Council would first vote on the proposed amendment(s). If the vote on that fails, then you would vote on the original unamended motion. Although this procedure is not spelled out in the Bylaws or Operating Procedures, this has been the custom and has been done several times, including in the recent past. Again, I hope this helps! Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org * One World. One Internet. * From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 2:25 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
Thanks Mary,
to be more specific: what if the amendments are not seen as friendly? What are the options for the council?
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Mary Wong <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:49 PM To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ; Neuman, Jeff <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> ; 'Thomas Rickert' <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de> ; GNSO Council List <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> ; Jonathan Robinson <mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
Hello Wolf-Ulrich,
If the changes to the motion (1) renumbering by (a) moving the Strong Support but Significant Opposition clause to the end, and (b) removing the clause about the SCI reviewing consensus levels; (2) proposing the removal of the SCI clause; and (3) proposing that the Council vote on the Strong Support but Significant Opposition recommendations (rather than the Council "reserving the right to deliberate [them] at the appropriate time" - are being proposed by Thomas as possible friendly amendments, then Jeff (as proposer) and you, Wolf-Ulrich (as seconder), will have to consider if you will accept them as such.
I hope this helps.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
* One World. One Internet. *
From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:34 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
Thanks Mary,
could you please clarify on how the amendment process is to be dealt with according to the GNSO rules?
Thanks
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Mary Wong <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:01 PM
To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ; Neuman, Jeff <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> ; 'Thomas Rickert' <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de> ; GNSO Council List <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> ; Jonathan Robinson <mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>
Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
Hello - the redlined version is attached.
Cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@icann.org
* One World. One Internet. *
From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 12:16 PM To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
It would be helpful for the constituencies¹ discussion to have a redline version of the motion available.
Could staff please provide it?
Thanks Wolf-Ulrich
From: Neuman, Jeff <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:24 AM
To: 'Thomas Rickert' <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de> ; GNSO Council List <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> ; Jonathan Robinson <mailto:jonathan.robinson@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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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 <http://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 <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
Thanks Mary, very helpful! Wolf-Ulrich From: Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 2:34 PM To: WUKnoben ; Neuman, Jeff ; 'Thomas Rickert' ; GNSO Council List ; Jonathan Robinson Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion My apologies if I misunderstood your question, Wolf-Ulrich! Basically, in that specific instance then the Council would first vote on the proposed amendment(s). If the vote on that fails, then you would vote on the original unamended motion. Although this procedure is not spelled out in the Bylaws or Operating Procedures, this has been the custom and has been done several times, including in the recent past. Again, I hope this helps! Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org * One World. One Internet. * From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 2:25 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion Thanks Mary, to be more specific: what if the amendments are not seen as friendly? What are the options for the council? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:49 PM To: WUKnoben ; Neuman, Jeff ; 'Thomas Rickert' ; GNSO Council List ; Jonathan Robinson Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion Hello Wolf-Ulrich, If the changes to the motion – (1) renumbering by (a) moving the Strong Support but Significant Opposition clause to the end, and (b) removing the clause about the SCI reviewing consensus levels; (2) proposing the removal of the SCI clause; and (3) proposing that the Council vote on the Strong Support but Significant Opposition recommendations (rather than the Council "reserving the right to deliberate [them] at the appropriate time" - are being proposed by Thomas as possible friendly amendments, then Jeff (as proposer) and you, Wolf-Ulrich (as seconder), will have to consider if you will accept them as such. I hope this helps. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org * One World. One Internet. * From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:34 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion Thanks Mary, could you please clarify on how the amendment process is to be dealt with according to the GNSO rules? Thanks Wolf-Ulrich From: Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:01 PM To: WUKnoben ; Neuman, Jeff ; 'Thomas Rickert' ; GNSO Council List ; Jonathan Robinson Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion Hello - the redlined version is attached. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org * One World. One Internet. * From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 12:16 PM To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> 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 Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:24 AM To: 'Thomas Rickert' ; GNSO Council List ; Jonathan Robinson 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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: a.. 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. b.. 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. c.. 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). d.. 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. e.. 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
All, As the maker of the motion, here is what I would consider friendly. I need to spend some time reviewing to see whether this document achieves this, so am not ready right now as I am in the middle of the gTLD Registries meeting: 1. Remove SCI portion of the motion and vote on that separately. 2. Vote on all of the "consensus recommendations" as a package; and 3. Remove former section 5 and vote on that separately from #1 and #2. I noticed here #1 was done. I am unclear if #2 and #3 are what Thomas is recommending as part of the friendly amendment. If that is what is being proposed, then I would consider it friendly. Please confirm. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Registry Services From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 2:34 PM To: WUKnoben; Neuman, Jeff; 'Thomas Rickert'; GNSO Council List; Jonathan Robinson Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion My apologies if I misunderstood your question, Wolf-Ulrich! Basically, in that specific instance then the Council would first vote on the proposed amendment(s). If the vote on that fails, then you would vote on the original unamended motion. Although this procedure is not spelled out in the Bylaws or Operating Procedures, this has been the custom and has been done several times, including in the recent past. Again, I hope this helps! Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> * One World. One Internet. * From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 2:25 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion Thanks Mary, to be more specific: what if the amendments are not seen as friendly? What are the options for the council? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Mary Wong<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:49 PM To: WUKnoben<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ; Neuman, Jeff<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> ; 'Thomas Rickert'<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de> ; GNSO Council List<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> ; Jonathan Robinson<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion Hello Wolf-Ulrich, If the changes to the motion - (1) renumbering by (a) moving the Strong Support but Significant Opposition clause to the end, and (b) removing the clause about the SCI reviewing consensus levels; (2) proposing the removal of the SCI clause; and (3) proposing that the Council vote on the Strong Support but Significant Opposition recommendations (rather than the Council "reserving the right to deliberate [them] at the appropriate time" - are being proposed by Thomas as possible friendly amendments, then Jeff (as proposer) and you, Wolf-Ulrich (as seconder), will have to consider if you will accept them as such. I hope this helps. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> * One World. One Internet. * From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:34 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion Thanks Mary, could you please clarify on how the amendment process is to be dealt with according to the GNSO rules? Thanks Wolf-Ulrich From: Mary Wong<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:01 PM To: WUKnoben<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ; Neuman, Jeff<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> ; 'Thomas Rickert'<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de> ; GNSO Council List<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> ; Jonathan Robinson<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion Hello - the redlined version is attached. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> * One World. One Internet. * From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 12:16 PM To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>> 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<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:24 AM To: 'Thomas Rickert'<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de> ; GNSO Council List<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> ; Jonathan Robinson<mailto:jonathan.robinson@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@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@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
Jeff, thanks for your e-mail. Am 19.11.2013 um 14:48 schrieb "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>:
All,
As the maker of the motion, here is what I would consider friendly. I need to spend some time reviewing to see whether this document achieves this, so am not ready right now as I am in the middle of the gTLD Registries meeting:
1. Remove SCI portion of the motion and vote on that separately.
Yes - it shall be moved to the consent agenda.
2. Vote on all of the “consensus recommendations” as a package; and
Yes.
3. Remove former section 5 and vote on that separately from #1 and #2.
Yes. We will keep 2 and 3 in one motion, but have two votes. Thanks for considering this friendly. Thomas
I noticed here #1 was done. I am unclear if #2 and #3 are what Thomas is recommending as part of the friendly amendment. If that is what is being proposed, then I would consider it friendly.
Please confirm.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Registry Services
From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 2:34 PM To: WUKnoben; Neuman, Jeff; 'Thomas Rickert'; GNSO Council List; Jonathan Robinson Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
My apologies if I misunderstood your question, Wolf-Ulrich!
Basically, in that specific instance then the Council would first vote on the proposed amendment(s). If the vote on that fails, then you would vote on the original unamended motion. Although this procedure is not spelled out in the Bylaws or Operating Procedures, this has been the custom and has been done several times, including in the recent past.
Again, I hope this helps!
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
* One World. One Internet. *
From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 2:25 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
Thanks Mary,
to be more specific: what if the amendments are not seen as friendly? What are the options for the council?
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:49 PM To: WUKnoben ; Neuman, Jeff ; 'Thomas Rickert' ; GNSO Council List ; Jonathan Robinson Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
Hello Wolf-Ulrich,
If the changes to the motion – (1) renumbering by (a) moving the Strong Support but Significant Opposition clause to the end, and (b) removing the clause about the SCI reviewing consensus levels; (2) proposing the removal of the SCI clause; and (3) proposing that the Council vote on the Strong Support but Significant Opposition recommendations (rather than the Council "reserving the right to deliberate [them] at the appropriate time" - are being proposed by Thomas as possible friendly amendments, then Jeff (as proposer) and you, Wolf-Ulrich (as seconder), will have to consider if you will accept them as such.
I hope this helps.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
* One World. One Internet. *
From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:34 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
Thanks Mary,
could you please clarify on how the amendment process is to be dealt with according to the GNSO rules?
Thanks
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:01 PM To: WUKnoben ; Neuman, Jeff ; 'Thomas Rickert' ; GNSO Council List ; Jonathan Robinson Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
Hello - the redlined version is attached.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
* One World. One Internet. *
From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 12:16 PM To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> 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 Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:24 AM To: 'Thomas Rickert' ; GNSO Council List ; Jonathan Robinson 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf OfThomas 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
Thanks Thomas. I consider this then a friendly amendment. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Registry Services From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 3:38 PM To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: 'Mary Wong'; WUKnoben; GNSO Council List; Jonathan Robinson Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion Jeff, thanks for your e-mail. Am 19.11.2013 um 14:48 schrieb "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>>: All, As the maker of the motion, here is what I would consider friendly. I need to spend some time reviewing to see whether this document achieves this, so am not ready right now as I am in the middle of the gTLD Registries meeting: 1. Remove SCI portion of the motion and vote on that separately. Yes - it shall be moved to the consent agenda. 2. Vote on all of the "consensus recommendations" as a package; and Yes. 3. Remove former section 5 and vote on that separately from #1 and #2. Yes. We will keep 2 and 3 in one motion, but have two votes. Thanks for considering this friendly. Thomas I noticed here #1 was done. I am unclear if #2 and #3 are what Thomas is recommending as part of the friendly amendment. If that is what is being proposed, then I would consider it friendly. Please confirm. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Registry Services From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org<http://icann.org>] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 2:34 PM To: WUKnoben; Neuman, Jeff; 'Thomas Rickert'; GNSO Council List; Jonathan Robinson Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion My apologies if I misunderstood your question, Wolf-Ulrich! Basically, in that specific instance then the Council would first vote on the proposed amendment(s). If the vote on that fails, then you would vote on the original unamended motion. Although this procedure is not spelled out in the Bylaws or Operating Procedures, this has been the custom and has been done several times, including in the recent past. Again, I hope this helps! Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> * One World. One Internet. * From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 2:25 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion Thanks Mary, to be more specific: what if the amendments are not seen as friendly? What are the options for the council? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Mary Wong<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:49 PM To: WUKnoben<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ; Neuman, Jeff<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> ; 'Thomas Rickert'<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de> ; GNSO Council List<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> ; Jonathan Robinson<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion Hello Wolf-Ulrich, If the changes to the motion - (1) renumbering by (a) moving the Strong Support but Significant Opposition clause to the end, and (b) removing the clause about the SCI reviewing consensus levels; (2) proposing the removal of the SCI clause; and (3) proposing that the Council vote on the Strong Support but Significant Opposition recommendations (rather than the Council "reserving the right to deliberate [them] at the appropriate time" - are being proposed by Thomas as possible friendly amendments, then Jeff (as proposer) and you, Wolf-Ulrich (as seconder), will have to consider if you will accept them as such. I hope this helps. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> * One World. One Internet. * From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:34 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion Thanks Mary, could you please clarify on how the amendment process is to be dealt with according to the GNSO rules? Thanks Wolf-Ulrich From: Mary Wong<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:01 PM To: WUKnoben<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ; Neuman, Jeff<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> ; 'Thomas Rickert'<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de> ; GNSO Council List<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> ; Jonathan Robinson<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion Hello - the redlined version is attached. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> * One World. One Internet. * From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 12:16 PM To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>> 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<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:24 AM To: 'Thomas Rickert'<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de> ; GNSO Council List<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> ; Jonathan Robinson<mailto:jonathan.robinson@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@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf OfThomas 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
I second. Wolf-Ulrich From: Neuman, Jeff Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 3:39 PM To: 'Thomas Rickert' Cc: 'Mary Wong' ; WUKnoben ; GNSO Council List ; Jonathan Robinson Subject: RE: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion Thanks Thomas. I consider this then a friendly amendment. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Registry Services From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 3:38 PM To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: 'Mary Wong'; WUKnoben; GNSO Council List; Jonathan Robinson Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion Jeff, thanks for your e-mail. Am 19.11.2013 um 14:48 schrieb "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>: All, As the maker of the motion, here is what I would consider friendly. I need to spend some time reviewing to see whether this document achieves this, so am not ready right now as I am in the middle of the gTLD Registries meeting: 1. Remove SCI portion of the motion and vote on that separately. Yes - it shall be moved to the consent agenda. 2. Vote on all of the “consensus recommendations” as a package; and Yes. 3. Remove former section 5 and vote on that separately from #1 and #2. Yes. We will keep 2 and 3 in one motion, but have two votes. Thanks for considering this friendly. Thomas I noticed here #1 was done. I am unclear if #2 and #3 are what Thomas is recommending as part of the friendly amendment. If that is what is being proposed, then I would consider it friendly. Please confirm. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Registry Services From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 2:34 PM To: WUKnoben; Neuman, Jeff; 'Thomas Rickert'; GNSO Council List; Jonathan Robinson Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion My apologies if I misunderstood your question, Wolf-Ulrich! Basically, in that specific instance then the Council would first vote on the proposed amendment(s). If the vote on that fails, then you would vote on the original unamended motion. Although this procedure is not spelled out in the Bylaws or Operating Procedures, this has been the custom and has been done several times, including in the recent past. Again, I hope this helps! Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org * One World. One Internet. * From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 2:25 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion Thanks Mary, to be more specific: what if the amendments are not seen as friendly? What are the options for the council? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:49 PM To: WUKnoben ; Neuman, Jeff ; 'Thomas Rickert' ; GNSO Council List ; Jonathan Robinson Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion Hello Wolf-Ulrich, If the changes to the motion – (1) renumbering by (a) moving the Strong Support but Significant Opposition clause to the end, and (b) removing the clause about the SCI reviewing consensus levels; (2) proposing the removal of the SCI clause; and (3) proposing that the Council vote on the Strong Support but Significant Opposition recommendations (rather than the Council "reserving the right to deliberate [them] at the appropriate time" - are being proposed by Thomas as possible friendly amendments, then Jeff (as proposer) and you, Wolf-Ulrich (as seconder), will have to consider if you will accept them as such. I hope this helps. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org * One World. One Internet. * From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:34 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion Thanks Mary, could you please clarify on how the amendment process is to be dealt with according to the GNSO rules? Thanks Wolf-Ulrich From: Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:01 PM To: WUKnoben ; Neuman, Jeff ; 'Thomas Rickert' ; GNSO Council List ; Jonathan Robinson Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion Hello - the redlined version is attached. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org * One World. One Internet. * From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 12:16 PM To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> 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 Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:24 AM To: 'Thomas Rickert' ; GNSO Council List ; Jonathan Robinson 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf OfThomas 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: a.. 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. b.. 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. c.. 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). d.. 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. e.. 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
participants (4)
-
Mary Wong -
Neuman, Jeff -
Thomas Rickert -
WUKnoben