GNSO Council teleconference MP3 recording 24 May 2007
[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on 24 May 2007 at: http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20070524.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#may Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
Council, My apologies I was finally not available to make it to today teleconf as I had expected. I just listened to the MP3. Regarding the item 5 (see below), my count of the votes does not match the one you announced on the call, Bruce, i.e. "10 votes in favor". I have counted 8 YES (Bruce, Philip, Kristina, Mike, Ross, Alistair, Tony, and Greg), 6 NO (Avri, Robin, Norbert, Sophia, Chuck, and Edmond), and 1 Abstention (Thomas). So I'd request that the correct results be confirmed (after double-checking), and if relevant, the subsequent request of an issue report on IGO names be reconsidered. Thanks, Mawaki Item 5: Motion to request issues report on protecting IGO names and abbreviations Whereas, the GNSO Council recognizes the recommendation put forward by the IPC Constituency regarding possible measures in line with WIPO-2 to protect International Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) names and abbreviations as domain names. Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that measures to protect IGO names and abbreviations are requested in the GAC principles for New gTLDs. Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that WIPO is the maintenance agency for the authoritative list of relevant IGO names and abbreviations protected under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention (http://www.wipo.int/article6ter/en/ ). The GNSO Council requests that the staff produce an issues report on the policy issues associated with adequately handling disputes relating to IGO names and abbreviations as domain names. The GNSO Council also requests that the staff liaise with WIPO to utilize its knowledge and experience of WIPO-2. Bruce, --- "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG" <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org]
Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on 24 May 2007 at:
http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20070524.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#may
Happy listening!
Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
Note Mawaki that even if your count is correct, the motion would still pass because only 25% is needed, which I believe would be 7 (25% of 27 = 6.75). Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:05 PM To: GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG; 'Council GNSO' Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council teleconference MP3 recording 24 May 2007
Council,
My apologies I was finally not available to make it to today teleconf as I had expected.
I just listened to the MP3. Regarding the item 5 (see below), my count of the votes does not match the one you announced on the call, Bruce, i.e. "10 votes in favor". I have counted 8 YES (Bruce, Philip, Kristina, Mike, Ross, Alistair, Tony, and Greg), 6 NO (Avri, Robin, Norbert, Sophia, Chuck, and Edmond), and 1 Abstention (Thomas).
So I'd request that the correct results be confirmed (after double-checking), and if relevant, the subsequent request of an issue report on IGO names be reconsidered. Thanks,
Mawaki
Item 5: Motion to request issues report on protecting IGO names and abbreviations
Whereas, the GNSO Council recognizes the recommendation put forward by the IPC Constituency regarding possible measures in line with WIPO-2 to protect International Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) names and abbreviations as domain names.
Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that measures to protect IGO names and abbreviations are requested in the GAC principles for New gTLDs.
Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that WIPO is the maintenance agency for the authoritative list of relevant IGO names and abbreviations protected under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention (http://www.wipo.int/article6ter/en/ ).
The GNSO Council requests that the staff produce an issues report on the policy issues associated with adequately handling disputes relating to IGO names and abbreviations as domain names.
The GNSO Council also requests that the staff liaise with WIPO to utilize its knowledge and experience of WIPO-2.
Bruce,
--- "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG" <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org]
Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on 24 May 2007 at:
http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20070524.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#may
Happy listening!
Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
Apparently, you mean 25% of the whole council, not of those voting. Subject to confirmation, there were still more than 25% on the call who did not vote YES (6 No and 1 Abstention.) My point is, even if the percentage count is against the size of the whole council, you may still have 25% or more voting for one position, and similarly 25% or more voting in the other direction. How does one deal with that if the only requirement is to reach 25% for a decision to be made? Is there any consideration about the significance of count difference? For example if 8 voted YES and 9 voted NO: both are beyond 25% and the difference is one vote - would NO simply be the outcome? Thanks, Mawaki --- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Note Mawaki that even if your count is correct, the motion would still pass because only 25% is needed, which I believe would be 7 (25% of 27 = 6.75).
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:05 PM To: GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG; 'Council GNSO' Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council teleconference MP3 recording 24 May 2007
Council,
My apologies I was finally not available to make it to today
teleconf as I had expected.
I just listened to the MP3. Regarding the item 5 (see below), my count of the votes does not match the one you announced on the call, Bruce, i.e. "10 votes in favor". I have counted 8 YES (Bruce, Philip, Kristina, Mike, Ross, Alistair, Tony, and Greg), 6 NO (Avri, Robin, Norbert, Sophia, Chuck, and Edmond), and 1 Abstention (Thomas).
So I'd request that the correct results be confirmed (after double-checking), and if relevant, the subsequent request of
an issue report on IGO names be reconsidered. Thanks,
Mawaki
Item 5: Motion to request issues report on protecting IGO names and abbreviations
Whereas, the GNSO Council recognizes the recommendation put forward by the IPC Constituency regarding possible measures in line with WIPO-2 to protect International Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) names and abbreviations as domain names.
Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that measures to protect IGO
names and abbreviations are requested in the GAC principles for New gTLDs.
Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that WIPO is the maintenance
agency for the authoritative list of relevant IGO names and abbreviations protected under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention (http://www.wipo.int/article6ter/en/ ).
The GNSO Council requests that the staff produce an issues report on the policy issues associated with adequately handling disputes relating to IGO names and abbreviations as
domain names.
The GNSO Council also requests that the staff liaise with WIPO to utilize its knowledge and experience of WIPO-2.
Bruce,
--- "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG" <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org]
Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on 24 May 2007 at:
http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20070524.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#may
Happy listening!
Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
Note that Annex A of the Bylaws, Section 1.a says, "Council Initiation. The GNSO Council may initiate the PDP by a vote of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the members of the Council present at any meeting in which a motion to initiate the PDP is made." I personally think the wording here is a little misleading when taken in context with later wording in 3.b that says, "Issue Raised by Other than by the Board. If a policy issue is presented to the Council for consideration via an Issue Report, then the Council shall meet within fifteen (15) calendar days after receipt of such Report to vote on whether to initiate the PDP. . ." It seems to me that better wording for 1.a would be "Council Initiation. The GNSO Council may REQUEST AN ISSUES REPORT by a vote of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the members of the Council present at any meeting in which a motion to initiate the PDP is made." Regardless of the wording of 1.a, note that 25% of "the members of the Council present at any meeting" is an even easier threshhold. Using your count of members present, eight members supporting the motion out of 14 members present represents over 50% of members present. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: Mawaki Chango [mailto:ki_chango@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:36 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council teleconference MP3 recording 24 May 2007
Apparently, you mean 25% of the whole council, not of those voting. Subject to confirmation, there were still more than 25% on the call who did not vote YES (6 No and 1 Abstention.)
My point is, even if the percentage count is against the size of the whole council, you may still have 25% or more voting for one position, and similarly 25% or more voting in the other direction. How does one deal with that if the only requirement is to reach 25% for a decision to be made? Is there any consideration about the significance of count difference? For example if 8 voted YES and 9 voted NO: both are beyond 25% and the difference is one vote - would NO simply be the outcome?
Thanks, Mawaki
--- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Note Mawaki that even if your count is correct, the motion would still pass because only 25% is needed, which I believe would be 7 (25% of 27 = 6.75).
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:05 PM To: GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG; 'Council GNSO' Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council teleconference MP3 recording 24 May 2007
Council,
My apologies I was finally not available to make it to today
teleconf as I had expected.
I just listened to the MP3. Regarding the item 5 (see below), my count of the votes does not match the one you announced on the call, Bruce, i.e. "10 votes in favor". I have counted 8 YES (Bruce, Philip, Kristina, Mike, Ross, Alistair, Tony, and Greg), 6 NO (Avri, Robin, Norbert, Sophia, Chuck, and Edmond), and 1 Abstention (Thomas).
So I'd request that the correct results be confirmed (after double-checking), and if relevant, the subsequent request of
an issue report on IGO names be reconsidered. Thanks,
Mawaki
Item 5: Motion to request issues report on protecting IGO names and abbreviations
Whereas, the GNSO Council recognizes the recommendation put forward by the IPC Constituency regarding possible measures in line with WIPO-2 to protect International Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) names and abbreviations as domain names.
Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that measures to protect IGO
names and abbreviations are requested in the GAC principles for New gTLDs.
Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that WIPO is the maintenance
agency for the authoritative list of relevant IGO names and abbreviations protected under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention (http://www.wipo.int/article6ter/en/ ).
The GNSO Council requests that the staff produce an issues report on the policy issues associated with adequately handling disputes relating to IGO names and abbreviations as
domain names.
The GNSO Council also requests that the staff liaise with WIPO to utilize its knowledge and experience of WIPO-2.
Bruce,
--- "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG" <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org]
Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on 24 May 2007 at:
http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20070524.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#may
Happy listening!
Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
Hello Mawaki, The history behind the current version of the PDP process, was that the "intent" was to have a relatively low threshold for Council members to request an issues report of staff (25%), and to initiate a PDP (33% provided the General Counsel support the work, or 66% if not). I believe this was to prevent the GNSO Council becoming a barrier for 2-3 constituencies deciding to investigate a matter. There is a much higher barrier to actually make a consensus policy (2/3 majority) once the PDP process reaches its conclusion. Presumably the balance allows an issue to get a more public airing through a structured issues report, and encourage more constituencies to become interested and involved by the time it gets to the conclusion. I think the key to this process is that the issues reports need to be good, and build enough support in the wider community to collectively want to create a new policy. The alternative of requiring a majority or super-majority vote on Council to initiate an issues report - will tend to save staff resources, but probably only works when the ICANN community doesn't actually need an issues report (ie they already understand the issues sufficiently to want to initiate policy development). I note that none of these issues appeared to come up in the GNSO review process - ie the thresholds for issues reports did not seem to come up as an area of concern. So I am assuming that the Board will not wish to change them. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Hello Bruce, --- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
I believe this was to prevent the GNSO Council becoming a barrier for 2-3 constituencies deciding to investigate a matter.
[snip]
I note that none of these issues appeared to come up in the GNSO review process - ie the thresholds for issues reports did not seem to come up as an area of concern. So I am assuming that the Board will not wish to change them.
It makes perfect sense. I note that you carefully :) set aside in your next email my first consclusion and question about the weighted vote: Is there any type of vote where each registry and registrar rep does not count for 2 votes, or is it so for all votes the council take? thanks, Mawaki
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Hello Mawaki,
I note that you carefully :) set aside in your next email my first consclusion and question about the weighted vote: Is there any type of vote where each registry and registrar rep does not count for 2 votes, or is it so for all votes the council take? thanks,
It is currently all votes. There has been some discussion during the various review processes of changing this, so that the weighted voting would only apply to voting on consensus policies that directly affect contracted parties (registries and registrars), and would not apply to other matters such as elections. Weighted voting is certainly an issue that was reported on in the recent GNSO review. The view points on this topic tend to divide by those that have weighted voting (want it retained) and those that don't (want it removed) :-) There is a lot of history behind why weighted voting was introduced. You would need to review audio recordings/minutes of meetings prior to the current version of the bylaws. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
On 25 maj 2007, at 05.52, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
The view points on this topic tend to divide by those that have weighted voting (want it retained) and those that don't (want it removed) :-)
I am not sure that the division between the two positions maps that strictly. I expect there are those on both sides of this issue who are able to look at it more or less dispassionately and make a decision that is not based on whether they have 1 vote or 2. I believe that is at least true for the individual representatives. That may not be true for the constituencies themselves - it is hard to imagine a collective mind such as a constituency that enforces constituency based united front voting being willing to give up such an advantage if it has it, or not wanting an advantage it doesn't have. And yes, I noticed that you said 'tends'. ;-) a. note on 'united front' for anyone who has not encountered the term before, it is a notion that no matter how much disagreement there may be within a group, e.g. a constituency, it behaves as if of one mind outside the constituency. in the politics it is sometimes called party discipline. opinions on whether it is good or evil vary.
I think it worthwhile reminding Council about the origin of an issues report (versus agreeing to start a PDP). The issues report is intended to clarify that there is indeed an issue. No more, no less. It maps out an issue in an unbiased way to then allow Council to vote on its merits. The vote on whether to ask for an Issues Report should be a collegiate action of Council meaning that: a) someone thinks there is an issue b) Council recognises there is an issue. The vote should NOT be based on Council's view of the merits of any possible outcome or resources. These questions come later. The reasons to vote NO are: a) it is outside of the scope of the GNSO b) it is an issue best dealt with bilaterally by the parties concerned c) it is in scope but of trivial importance. The reasons to vote YES are: a) it is an issue and is in scope of the GNSO b) I hate all possible outcomes but recognise it is an issue and in scope c) I like some possible outcomes and recognise it is an issue and in scope. Philip
On 25 maj 2007, at 09.57, Philip Sheppard wrote:
The vote should NOT be based on Council's view of the merits of any possible outcome or resources. These questions come later. The reasons to vote NO are: a) it is outside of the scope of the GNSO b) it is an issue best dealt with bilaterally by the parties concerned c) it is in scope but of trivial importance.
There may be other reasons. one example is: - while there is a gTLD process going on that is considering reserved names and other similar issues, perhaps taking a separate route is not necessary and there may be other ways to handle it. another possibility - that no matter how 'bend over backwards' cooperative the staff is being a person might still feel that it is an overload at this time when we are in a crunch to finish the new gTLD work.
The vote on whether to ask for an Issues Report should be a collegiate action of Council meaning that:
I think the possible inference that those who voted against this were being non-collegial is perhaps a bit strong. but perhaps the message did not mean to imply that and i am mistaken in reading that into it. best regards, a.
Avri, all new activities have resource implications. Council should timetable its priorities based on the list of identified issues that we wish to do something about. There is no shame in identifying an issue today and then agreeing to start a PDP on it in 6 months time based on an assessment of priority and resource. Indeed, this may be sound management. Philip
Hi, In principle I agree with this approach. I would have preferred waiting to ask the staff to do this until the new GTLD process was completed. As it stands, once we ask for the report, we are on a timetable. And though we don't do a very good job of following the time table in any case and are hoping for a rationalization of the timing in the PDP in the future, i think it better to not start something we cannot follow through on. a. On 25 maj 2007, at 11.01, Philip Sheppard wrote:
Avri, all new activities have resource implications. Council should timetable its priorities based on the list of identified issues that we wish to do something about. There is no shame in identifying an issue today and then agreeing to start a PDP on it in 6 months time based on an assessment of priority and resource. Indeed, this may be sound management.
Philip
Philip, I don't totally agree with you regarding the consideration of merits of an issue when deciding whether to request an issues report. You are correct of course that the primary place for doing that is when we decide whether to initiate a PDP, but if there is already established work that indicates the merits of the issue are questionable, it is not necessarily good use of ICANN staff resources to ask them to create an issues report. Regardless of how willing ICANN staff is to respond, the reality of the matter is that their response sometimes means working longer hours and/or delaying other tasks that has other fallout. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 3:58 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] An issue or not an issue - that is the question
I think it worthwhile reminding Council about the origin of an issues report (versus agreeing to start a PDP). The issues report is intended to clarify that there is indeed an issue. No more, no less. It maps out an issue in an unbiased way to then allow Council to vote on its merits.
The vote on whether to ask for an Issues Report should be a collegiate action of Council meaning that: a) someone thinks there is an issue b) Council recognises there is an issue.
The vote should NOT be based on Council's view of the merits of any possible outcome or resources. These questions come later. The reasons to vote NO are: a) it is outside of the scope of the GNSO b) it is an issue best dealt with bilaterally by the parties concerned c) it is in scope but of trivial importance.
The reasons to vote YES are: a) it is an issue and is in scope of the GNSO b) I hate all possible outcomes but recognise it is an issue and in scope c) I like some possible outcomes and recognise it is an issue and in scope.
Philip
From my perspective, this level of detail is interesting, but doesn't properly credit the real point of the issues report, which is to identify the issues surrounding a specific policy question. Its my opinion that Council should only proceed with the process of creating an issues report if we believe that there are reasonable grounds that there is a policy question that needs an answer, that the timing is right to do so and that it would help the council better understand the what the landscape looks like in order that it might consider whether or not a full PDP is warranted. I only voted in favor of the creation of the issues report on this basis. Based on the facts that I have come to understand, I do not believe that this specific issue merits a full PDP, but that it behooves us to understand the entire picture before we fully commit or defer. Unless the issues report raises substantive new facts that I haven't considered, its not likely that I will vote in favor of moving ahead with a PDP on this particular policy question. Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Philip,
I don't totally agree with you regarding the consideration of merits of an issue when deciding whether to request an issues report. You are correct of course that the primary place for doing that is when we decide whether to initiate a PDP, but if there is already established work that indicates the merits of the issue are questionable, it is not necessarily good use of ICANN staff resources to ask them to create an issues report. Regardless of how willing ICANN staff is to respond, the reality of the matter is that their response sometimes means working longer hours and/or delaying other tasks that has other fallout.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 3:58 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] An issue or not an issue - that is the question
I think it worthwhile reminding Council about the origin of an issues report (versus agreeing to start a PDP). The issues report is intended to clarify that there is indeed an issue. No more, no less. It maps out an issue in an unbiased way to then allow Council to vote on its merits.
The vote on whether to ask for an Issues Report should be a collegiate action of Council meaning that: a) someone thinks there is an issue b) Council recognises there is an issue.
The vote should NOT be based on Council's view of the merits of any possible outcome or resources. These questions come later. The reasons to vote NO are: a) it is outside of the scope of the GNSO b) it is an issue best dealt with bilaterally by the parties concerned c) it is in scope but of trivial importance.
The reasons to vote YES are: a) it is an issue and is in scope of the GNSO b) I hate all possible outcomes but recognise it is an issue and in scope c) I like some possible outcomes and recognise it is an issue and in scope.
Philip
Have we, documented, any cases where PDP was not initiated after an issues report has been requested by the council and, well..., issued? --- Ross Rader <ross@tucows.com> wrote:
From my perspective, this level of detail is interesting, but doesn't properly credit the real point of the issues report, which is to identify the issues surrounding a specific policy question. Its my opinion that Council should only proceed with the process of creating an issues report if we believe that there are reasonable grounds that there is a policy question that needs an answer, that the timing is right to do so and that it would help the council better understand the what the landscape looks like in order that it might consider whether or not a full PDP is warranted.
I only voted in favor of the creation of the issues report on this basis. Based on the facts that I have come to understand, I do not believe that this specific issue merits a full PDP, but that it behooves us to understand the entire picture before we fully commit or defer.
Unless the issues report raises substantive new facts that I haven't considered, its not likely that I will vote in favor of moving ahead with a PDP on this particular policy question.
Philip,
I don't totally agree with you regarding the consideration of merits of an issue when deciding whether to request an issues report. You are correct of course that the primary place for doing that is when we decide whether to initiate a PDP, but if there is already established work that indicates the merits of the issue are questionable, it is not necessarily good use of ICANN staff resources to ask them to create an issues report. Regardless of how willing ICANN staff is to respond, the reality of the matter is that their response sometimes means working longer hours and/or delaying other tasks that has other fallout.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly
Gomes, Chuck wrote: privileged, prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 3:58 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] An issue or not an issue - that is the question
I think it worthwhile reminding Council about the origin of
an issues report (versus agreeing to start a PDP). The issues report is intended to clarify that there is indeed an issue. No more, no less. It maps out an issue in an unbiased way to then allow Council to vote on its merits.
The vote on whether to ask for an Issues Report should be a
collegiate action of Council meaning that: a) someone thinks there is an issue b) Council recognises there is an issue.
The vote should NOT be based on Council's view of the merits of any possible outcome or resources. These questions come later. The reasons to vote NO are: a) it is outside of the scope of the GNSO b) it is an issue best dealt with bilaterally by the parties concerned c) it is in scope but of trivial importance.
The reasons to vote YES are: a) it is an issue and is in scope of the GNSO b) I hate all possible outcomes but recognise it is an issue and in scope c) I like some possible outcomes and recognise it is an issue and in scope.
Philip
Hello Mawaki,
Have we, documented, any cases where PDP was not initiated after an issues report has been requested by the council and, well..., issued?
We are great at documentation - but not good are organising that documentation :-) Ie we certainly have all the minutes of the meetings, and draft documents. Go here for a reasonable list of "issues": http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/ We did commission an issues report on IDNs: http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/idn-tlds/issues-report-17jul06.htm I don't think the issues report was ever finalised. We did decide to form a working group to examine the issues further. My understanding is that the IDN issues are currently being treated as types of new gTLDs, and the work of the working group is being incorporated into the final report with respect to implementation guidelines. So I think this is an example of where we called for an issues report but didn't proceed to a full PDP. There have also been various reviews of existing policy (transfers and UDRP) - but we haven't yet decided to proceed to a PDP to update those policies. E.g see: http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/udrp/table-udrp-issue.shtml Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Mawaki, The vote count is: in favour: Philip Sheppard - 1 vote Mike Rodenbaugh - 1 vote Alistair Dixon - 1 vote Kristina Rosette - 1 vote Tony Holmes - 1 vote Greg Ruth - 1 vote Bruce Tonkin - 2 votes Ross Rader - 2 votes Total 10 votes in favour against Edmon Chung - 2 Votes Chuck Gomes - 2 votes Avri Doria - 1 vote Sophia Bekele - 1 vote Robin Gross - 1 vote Norbert Klein - 1 vote Total 8 votes against Tom Keller abstention No votes from the following people who were absent: Ute Decker Kiyoshi Tsuru Tony Harris Mawaki Chango Cary Karp Jon Bing http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm#AnnexA "1. Raising an Issue An issue may be raised for consideration as part of the PDP by any of the following: b. Council Initiation. The GNSO Council may initiate the PDP by a vote of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the members of the Council present at any meeting in which a motion to initiate the PDP is made." There were 15 voting Council members present, representing 20 votes. The 10 votes in favour represent 50%, while only 25% is required by the bylaws. I hope this clarifies the situation. Please let me know if you have other questions. The minutes will be out soon. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Mawaki Chango a écrit :
Council,
My apologies I was finally not available to make it to today teleconf as I had expected.
I just listened to the MP3. Regarding the item 5 (see below), my count of the votes does not match the one you announced on the call, Bruce, i.e. "10 votes in favor". I have counted 8 YES (Bruce, Philip, Kristina, Mike, Ross, Alistair, Tony, and Greg), 6 NO (Avri, Robin, Norbert, Sophia, Chuck, and Edmond), and 1 Abstention (Thomas).
So I'd request that the correct results be confirmed (after double-checking), and if relevant, the subsequent request of an issue report on IGO names be reconsidered. Thanks,
Mawaki
Item 5: Motion to request issues report on protecting IGO names and abbreviations
Whereas, the GNSO Council recognizes the recommendation put forward by the IPC Constituency regarding possible measures in line with WIPO-2 to protect International Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) names and abbreviations as domain names.
Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that measures to protect IGO names and abbreviations are requested in the GAC principles for New gTLDs.
Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that WIPO is the maintenance agency for the authoritative list of relevant IGO names and abbreviations protected under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention (http://www.wipo.int/article6ter/en/ ).
The GNSO Council requests that the staff produce an issues report on the policy issues associated with adequately handling disputes relating to IGO names and abbreviations as domain names.
The GNSO Council also requests that the staff liaise with WIPO to utilize its knowledge and experience of WIPO-2.
Bruce,
--- "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG" <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org]
Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on 24 May 2007 at:
http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20070524.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#may
Happy listening!
Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
-- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
Assuredly, Glen, this clarifies: 1. that the wighted vote for certain constituencies (1 rep = 2 votes) still weighs in for voting issue report, so i guess at this point that this is the case in every voting (or is there any exception where any council member's vote is equal to any other one's?) 2. that there's no notion of majority (not even relative majority) in voting issue report: if 27% of the council members on the call vote for the IR, and 30% vote against, there will still be an IR. Is my understanding correct? Many thanks to you Glen and Chuck for helping understand this. Mawaki --- "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG" <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Mawaki,
The vote count is: in favour: Philip Sheppard - 1 vote Mike Rodenbaugh - 1 vote Alistair Dixon - 1 vote Kristina Rosette - 1 vote Tony Holmes - 1 vote Greg Ruth - 1 vote Bruce Tonkin - 2 votes Ross Rader - 2 votes
Total 10 votes in favour
against Edmon Chung - 2 Votes Chuck Gomes - 2 votes Avri Doria - 1 vote Sophia Bekele - 1 vote Robin Gross - 1 vote Norbert Klein - 1 vote Total 8 votes against
Tom Keller abstention
No votes from the following people who were absent: Ute Decker Kiyoshi Tsuru Tony Harris Mawaki Chango Cary Karp Jon Bing
http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm#AnnexA
"1. Raising an Issue
An issue may be raised for consideration as part of the PDP by any of the following:
b. Council Initiation. The GNSO Council may initiate the PDP by a vote of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the members of the Council present at any meeting in which a motion to initiate the PDP is made."
There were 15 voting Council members present, representing 20 votes. The 10 votes in favour represent 50%, while only 25% is required by the bylaws.
I hope this clarifies the situation. Please let me know if you have other questions. The minutes will be out soon.
Thank you. Kind regards,
Glen
Council,
My apologies I was finally not available to make it to today teleconf as I had expected.
I just listened to the MP3. Regarding the item 5 (see below), my count of the votes does not match the one you announced on
Mawaki Chango a écrit : the
call, Bruce, i.e. "10 votes in favor". I have counted 8 YES (Bruce, Philip, Kristina, Mike, Ross, Alistair, Tony, and Greg), 6 NO (Avri, Robin, Norbert, Sophia, Chuck, and Edmond), and 1 Abstention (Thomas).
So I'd request that the correct results be confirmed (after double-checking), and if relevant, the subsequent request of an issue report on IGO names be reconsidered. Thanks,
Mawaki
Item 5: Motion to request issues report on protecting IGO names and abbreviations
Whereas, the GNSO Council recognizes the recommendation put forward by the IPC Constituency regarding possible measures in line with WIPO-2 to protect International Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) names and abbreviations as domain names.
Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that measures to protect IGO names and abbreviations are requested in the GAC principles for New gTLDs.
Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that WIPO is the maintenance agency for the authoritative list of relevant IGO names and abbreviations protected under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention (http://www.wipo.int/article6ter/en/ ).
The GNSO Council requests that the staff produce an issues report on the policy issues associated with adequately handling disputes relating to IGO names and abbreviations as domain names.
The GNSO Council also requests that the staff liaise with WIPO to utilize its knowledge and experience of WIPO-2.
Bruce,
--- "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG" <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org]
Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on 24 May 2007 at:
http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20070524.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#may
Happy listening!
Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
-- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
One more comment Mawaki. The result is the same whether weighted voting applies or not. Note that I just included members present in the below calculations per the Bylaws. No weighted voting: 8/15 = 53.3% Weighted voting: 10/21 = 47.6% Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:52 PM To: GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG; 'Council GNSO' Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council teleconference MP3 recording 24 May 2007
Assuredly, Glen, this clarifies:
1. that the wighted vote for certain constituencies (1 rep = 2 votes) still weighs in for voting issue report, so i guess at this point that this is the case in every voting (or is there any exception where any council member's vote is equal to any other one's?)
2. that there's no notion of majority (not even relative majority) in voting issue report: if 27% of the council members on the call vote for the IR, and 30% vote against, there will still be an IR.
Is my understanding correct? Many thanks to you Glen and Chuck for helping understand this.
Mawaki
--- "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG" <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Mawaki,
The vote count is: in favour: Philip Sheppard - 1 vote Mike Rodenbaugh - 1 vote Alistair Dixon - 1 vote Kristina Rosette - 1 vote Tony Holmes - 1 vote Greg Ruth - 1 vote Bruce Tonkin - 2 votes Ross Rader - 2 votes
Total 10 votes in favour
against Edmon Chung - 2 Votes Chuck Gomes - 2 votes Avri Doria - 1 vote Sophia Bekele - 1 vote Robin Gross - 1 vote Norbert Klein - 1 vote Total 8 votes against
Tom Keller abstention
No votes from the following people who were absent: Ute Decker Kiyoshi Tsuru Tony Harris Mawaki Chango Cary Karp Jon Bing
"1. Raising an Issue
An issue may be raised for consideration as part of the PDP by any of the following:
b. Council Initiation. The GNSO Council may initiate
vote of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the members of the Council present at any meeting in which a motion to initiate the PDP is made."
There were 15 voting Council members present, representing 20 votes. The 10 votes in favour represent 50%, while only 25% is required by the bylaws.
I hope this clarifies the situation. Please let me know if you have other questions. The minutes will be out soon.
Thank you. Kind regards,
Glen
Council,
My apologies I was finally not available to make it to today teleconf as I had expected.
I just listened to the MP3. Regarding the item 5 (see below), my count of the votes does not match the one you announced on
Mawaki Chango a écrit : the
call, Bruce, i.e. "10 votes in favor". I have counted 8 YES (Bruce, Philip, Kristina, Mike, Ross, Alistair, Tony, and Greg), 6 NO (Avri, Robin, Norbert, Sophia, Chuck, and Edmond), and 1 Abstention (Thomas).
So I'd request that the correct results be confirmed (after double-checking), and if relevant, the subsequent request of an issue report on IGO names be reconsidered. Thanks,
Mawaki
Item 5: Motion to request issues report on protecting IGO names and abbreviations
Whereas, the GNSO Council recognizes the recommendation
by the IPC Constituency regarding possible measures in line with WIPO-2 to protect International Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) names and abbreviations as domain names.
Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that measures to protect IGO names and abbreviations are requested in the GAC principles for New gTLDs.
Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that WIPO is the
http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm#AnnexA the PDP by a put forward maintenance agency
for the authoritative list of relevant IGO names and abbreviations protected under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention (http://www.wipo.int/article6ter/en/ ).
The GNSO Council requests that the staff produce an issues report on the policy issues associated with adequately handling disputes relating to IGO names and abbreviations as domain names.
The GNSO Council also requests that the staff liaise with WIPO to utilize its knowledge and experience of WIPO-2.
Bruce,
--- "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG" <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org]
Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on 24 May 2007 at:
http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20070524.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#may
Happy listening!
Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
-- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
Chuck, at that point (when the basic "political" arithmetic became clear with Glen's email), I was no longer disputing the outcome of the vote. I am, however, always inclined to learn and to that effect (and just for that), still interested to check whether the two conclusions in my previous message hold, which I've drawn from this exhance regarding our bylaws and processes. Thanks again. Mawaki --- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
One more comment Mawaki. The result is the same whether weighted voting applies or not. Note that I just included members present in the below calculations per the Bylaws.
No weighted voting: 8/15 = 53.3%
Weighted voting: 10/21 = 47.6%
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:52 PM To: GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG; 'Council GNSO' Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council teleconference MP3 recording 24 May 2007
Assuredly, Glen, this clarifies:
1. that the wighted vote for certain constituencies (1 rep = 2 votes) still weighs in for voting issue report, so i guess at this point that this is the case in every voting (or is there any exception where any council member's vote is equal to any other one's?)
2. that there's no notion of majority (not even relative majority) in voting issue report: if 27% of the council members on the call vote for the IR, and 30% vote against, there will still be an IR.
Is my understanding correct? Many thanks to you Glen and Chuck for helping understand this.
Mawaki
--- "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG" <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Mawaki,
The vote count is: in favour: Philip Sheppard - 1 vote Mike Rodenbaugh - 1 vote Alistair Dixon - 1 vote Kristina Rosette - 1 vote Tony Holmes - 1 vote Greg Ruth - 1 vote Bruce Tonkin - 2 votes Ross Rader - 2 votes
Total 10 votes in favour
against Edmon Chung - 2 Votes Chuck Gomes - 2 votes Avri Doria - 1 vote Sophia Bekele - 1 vote Robin Gross - 1 vote Norbert Klein - 1 vote Total 8 votes against
Tom Keller abstention
No votes from the following people who were absent: Ute Decker Kiyoshi Tsuru Tony Harris Mawaki Chango Cary Karp Jon Bing
http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm#AnnexA
"1. Raising an Issue
An issue may be raised for consideration as part of the PDP by any of the following:
b. Council Initiation. The GNSO Council may initiate the PDP by a vote of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the members of the Council present at any meeting in which a motion to initiate the PDP is made."
There were 15 voting Council members present, representing
The 10 votes in favour represent 50%, while only 25% is required by the bylaws.
I hope this clarifies the situation. Please let me know if you have other questions. The minutes will be out soon.
Thank you. Kind regards,
Glen
Council,
My apologies I was finally not available to make it to today teleconf as I had expected.
I just listened to the MP3. Regarding the item 5 (see below), my count of the votes does not match the one you announced on
Mawaki Chango a écrit : the
call, Bruce, i.e. "10 votes in favor". I have counted 8 YES (Bruce, Philip, Kristina, Mike, Ross, Alistair, Tony, and Greg), 6 NO (Avri, Robin, Norbert, Sophia, Chuck, and Edmond), and 1 Abstention (Thomas).
So I'd request that the correct results be confirmed (after double-checking), and if relevant, the subsequent request of an issue report on IGO names be reconsidered. Thanks,
Mawaki
Item 5: Motion to request issues report on protecting IGO names and abbreviations
Whereas, the GNSO Council recognizes the recommendation
by the IPC Constituency regarding possible measures in
20 votes. put forward line
with
WIPO-2 to protect International Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) names and abbreviations as domain names.
Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that measures to protect
and abbreviations are requested in the GAC principles for New gTLDs.
Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that WIPO is the
IGO names maintenance agency
for the authoritative list of relevant IGO names and abbreviations protected under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention (http://www.wipo.int/article6ter/en/ ).
The GNSO Council requests that the staff produce an issues report on the policy issues associated with adequately handling disputes relating to IGO names and abbreviations as domain names.
The GNSO Council also requests that the staff liaise with WIPO to utilize its knowledge and experience of WIPO-2.
Bruce,
--- "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG" <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org]
Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on 24 May 2007 at:
http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20070524.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#may
Happy listening!
Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
-- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
Hello Mawaki,
2. that there's no notion of majority (not even relative majority) in voting issue report: if 27% of the council members on the call vote for the IR, and 30% vote against, there will still be an IR.
Is my understanding correct?
Correct. It is a bit unusual as it is not so much a Council resolution, as it is a request from some members of Council. As Chuck points out, the confusion is in the term "members" and "vote". As the bylaws use the words "vote of at least 25% of the members", I have interpreted that to invoke the rules regarding weighted voting. If it had said "at the request of 25% of the members present" I would not have included the count of the vote. In any case, I will ensure that the minutes count the result both ways (no. of members, and no. of votes cast). Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Hello Mawaki
I just listened to the MP3. Regarding the item 5 (see below), my count of the votes does not match the one you announced on the call, Bruce, i.e. "10 votes in favor". I have counted 8 YES (Bruce, Philip, Kristina, Mike, Ross, Alistair, Tony, and Greg), 6 NO (Avri, Robin, Norbert, Sophia, Chuck, and Edmond), and 1 Abstention (Thomas).
My notes recorded the following votes in favour of the motion: Philip Sheppard (1 vote) Mike Rodenbaugh (1 vote) Alistair Dixon (1 vote) Tony Harris (1 vote) Greg Ruth (1 vote) Ross Rader (2 votes) Bruce Tonkin (2 votes) Kristina Rosette (1 vote) 8 Council members accounting for 10 votes, voted in favour. The difference in count is because I have used weighted voting in accordance with the bylaws: (http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#X) "The number of votes that members of the GNSO Council may cast shall be equalized so that the aggregate number of votes of representatives selected by the Constituencies (currently the gTLD Registries and Registrars) that are under contract with ICANN obligating them to implement ICANN-adopted policies is equal to the number of votes of representatives selected by other Constituencies. Initially, each member of the GNSO Council selected by the gTLD Registries Constituency or the Registrars Constituency shall be entitled to cast two votes and all other members (including those selected by the Nominating Committee) shall be entitled to cast one vote. In the event that there is a change in the Constituencies that are entitled to select voting members of the GNSO Council, the Board shall review the change in circumstances and by resolution revise the procedure for equalization of votes in a manner consistent with this paragraph 2." With respect to a call for an issues report, this is covered under: "The GNSO Council may initiate the PDP by a vote of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the members of the Council present at any meeting in which a motion to initiate the PDP is made." There were 15 Council members present at the meeting, accounting for a total 20 votes. Thus 8 council members, accounting for 10 votes, was sufficient to request that the staff produce an issues report. I hope this is clear. Note that once we receive the issues report the bylaws state: "A vote of more than 33% of the Council members present in favor of initiating the PDP will suffice to initiate the PDP; unless the Staff Recommendation stated that the issue is not properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process or the GNSO, in which case a Supermajority Vote of the Council members present in favor of initiating the PDP will be required to initiate the PDP." Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Thanks Bruce, it's crystal clear now! You may jump 2 or 3 messages ahead in this thread :-) Mawaki --- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Mawaki
I just listened to the MP3. Regarding the item 5 (see
count of the votes does not match the one you announced on
below), my the
call, Bruce, i.e. "10 votes in favor". I have counted 8 YES (Bruce, Philip, Kristina, Mike, Ross, Alistair, Tony, and Greg), 6 NO (Avri, Robin, Norbert, Sophia, Chuck, and Edmond), and 1 Abstention (Thomas).
My notes recorded the following votes in favour of the motion:
Philip Sheppard (1 vote) Mike Rodenbaugh (1 vote) Alistair Dixon (1 vote) Tony Harris (1 vote) Greg Ruth (1 vote) Ross Rader (2 votes) Bruce Tonkin (2 votes) Kristina Rosette (1 vote)
8 Council members accounting for 10 votes, voted in favour.
The difference in count is because I have used weighted voting in accordance with the bylaws: (http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#X)
"The number of votes that members of the GNSO Council may cast shall be equalized so that the aggregate number of votes of representatives selected by the Constituencies (currently the gTLD Registries and Registrars) that are under contract with ICANN obligating them to implement ICANN-adopted policies is equal to the number of votes of representatives selected by other Constituencies. Initially, each member of the GNSO Council selected by the gTLD Registries Constituency or the Registrars Constituency shall be entitled to cast two votes and all other members (including those selected by the Nominating Committee) shall be entitled to cast one vote. In the event that there is a change in the Constituencies that are entitled to select voting members of the GNSO Council, the Board shall review the change in circumstances and by resolution revise the procedure for equalization of votes in a manner consistent with this paragraph 2."
With respect to a call for an issues report, this is covered under:
"The GNSO Council may initiate the PDP by a vote of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the members of the Council present at any meeting in which a motion to initiate the PDP is made."
There were 15 Council members present at the meeting, accounting for a total 20 votes.
Thus 8 council members, accounting for 10 votes, was sufficient to request that the staff produce an issues report.
I hope this is clear.
Note that once we receive the issues report the bylaws state:
"A vote of more than 33% of the Council members present in favor of initiating the PDP will suffice to initiate the PDP; unless the Staff Recommendation stated that the issue is not properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process or the GNSO, in which case a Supermajority Vote of the Council members present in favor of initiating the PDP will be required to initiate the PDP."
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
participants (7)
-
Avri Doria -
Bruce Tonkin -
GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG -
Gomes, Chuck -
Mawaki Chango -
Philip Sheppard -
Ross Rader