RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO-INGO Motion for GNSO Council

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Greg for the input.

Chuck

From: Shatan, Gregory S. [mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2013 11:53 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Mary Wong; Neuman, Jeff; Berry Cobb Mail; 
gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx; Thomas Rickert
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO-INGO Motion for GNSO Council

All:

I have been listening in on the GNSO discussions regarding the IGO/INGO Final 
Report and in particular Resolution 5 and the so-called alternate language.  I 
apologize for not focusing on the change to resolution 5 in our deliberations 
at the end of last week.  If I had, I would have strongly objected to this 
formulation.

I am not convinced that Recommendations with a SSbSO level of consensus should 
be distinguished from consensus/full consensus recommendations.  Indeed, I fail 
to see the support for this position.  In the end, a proposal is either a 
Recommendation or not.  Divergence is not sufficient to turn a proposal into a 
Recommendation in a motion.  Any of the “positive” levels of consensus (full 
consensus/consensus/SSbSO) should be enough to turn a proposal into a 
Recommendation.  At that point, it should be in the Motion.  Sure, SSbSO may 
foreshadow a more controversial motion (by definition there is significant 
opposition), and depending on the voting level required, may even foreshadow 
the failure of a Motion if Supermajority vote is required.  But that does not 
mean the Recommendation should not be considered as a matter of procedure.  
Pragmatically, if discussion reveals that the only way to get the Motion 
through the Council is to drop the controversial Recommendation, then it may 
make sense to amend the motion to remove them.  But the idea that SSbSO 
Recommendations can’t be considered as part of PDP Motion before the Council, 
even on Consensus Policy, seems wrong to me.

Also, there was no discussion in the WG that an SSbSO Recommendation was in 
essence a failed Recommendation.  I certainly thought it was a successful 
Recommendation.  I don’t even care whether I support what is in Resolution 5 or 
not.  This is purely a procedural question.  However, I am concerned that 
somehow “procedure” is being used to achieve a “substantive” goal – removing a 
Recommendation from the Motion, even when that Recommendation received support 
from most of the WG.  This seems to be an instance of “minority rule” and 
procedural gaming which concerns me greatly.

I freely admit I could be missing something, especially since I missed much of 
the discussion of this point.  I would appreciate any clarifications of my 
understanding of this issue.

Apologies also for not being in BA.  I would have spoken up about this if I had…

Greg


Gregory S. Shatan
Partner
Reed Smith LLP
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
212.549.0275 (Phone)
917.816.6428 (Mobile)
212.521.5450 (Fax)
gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.reedsmith.com<http://www.reedsmith.com>



From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx]>
 On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 11:56 AM
To: Mary Wong; Neuman, Jeff; Berry Cobb Mail; 
gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>; Thomas Rickert
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO-INGO Motion for GNSO Council

The motion looks good to me.

Chuck

From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 11:03 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff; Gomes, Chuck; Berry Cobb Mail; 
gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>; Thomas Rickert
Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO-INGO Motion for GNSO Council

Dear WG members,

Please find attached both clean and redlined (compared against the one 
discussed on the WG call on Friday) versions of the motion to be submitted to 
the GNSO Council for its consideration at its meeting in Buenos Aires. Thanks 
to Jeff for agreeing to submit the motion on or before 10 November 2013.

Thanks and cheers
Mary

Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>

* One World. One Internet. *

From: <Neuman>, Jeff <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Saturday, November 9, 2013 10:52 AM
To: "'Gomes, Chuck'" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Berry 
Cobb Mail <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>>, Thomas Rickert 
<rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO-INGO Final Report v1.7.1

I am here and can make the motion. Please send to me the final version and I 
will send it in.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Registry Services

From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 10:46 AM
To: Berry Cobb; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>; Thomas 
Rickert
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO-INGO Final Report v1.7.1

Thanks for the quick response.  Unless I am misunderstanding something, it is 
not enough to submit the draft motion if the deadline for motions  is 10 Nov.  
The motion must be made by a Councilor NLT 10 November. I would be good if Jeff 
would make the motion but getting him to do it on a weekend may be very 
difficult to do.  I suggest that Thomas or another Councilor in our WG make the 
motion if we can get one of them to do it (e.g., Wolf-Ulrich, Wolfgang, Osvaldo 
or Zahid).  Considering that some of these individuals may not see the email 
traffic on this, it might be necessary to make some phone calls.  I would start 
with Thomas as chair.

Chuck

From:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Berry Cobb
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 10:34 AM
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO-INGO Final Report v1.7.1

Hi Chuck,


1)      10 Nov 2013 @ 23:59

2)      On behalf of Thomas, I plan to mail the GNSO Council the Final Report, 
supplements to date, and draft motion on 10 Nov 2013 @ 16:00 UTC

a.       Jeff Nueman was our designated Council Liaison, but has not 
participated in the WG.

3)      The draft motion will be submitted along with the Final Report

a.       I will follow-up on Monday of next week with links to all documents on 
the IGO-INGO webpage once published by WebAdmin

b.      After the deadline for submitting Minority Reports (15 Nov), I will 
also notify the Council of the final submission

B

Berry Cobb
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
720.839.5735
mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
@berrycobb


From: Gomes, Chuck 
[mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]>
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 08:15
To: Berry Cobb; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>; Thomas 
Rickert
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO-INGO Final Report v1.7.1

I some additional questions that are unrelated to the documents:

1.       What is the deadline for motions be submitted for action in BA?

2.       Who is going to submit the motion?  (Thomas?)

3.       When will the motion be submitted?

Chuck

From:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Berry Cobb
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 7:30 PM
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO-INGO Final Report v1.7.1

WG Members,

Please find attached the latest version of the Final Report and its 
supplements.  For this version, I accepted all the prior changes.  I’m awaiting 
input from the GCO about the two issues we discussed in today’s call regarding 
the principles of implementation.

I ask members to review the latest draft closely and provide any additional 
feedback noting of any errors in reference or other small content changes to 
correct grammar or reduce confusion.

I will accept any suggested revisions until 9 Nov 2013 @ 23:59.  If no 
objections are made, I will update the master version and prepare the final 
draft.  I intend to send the report and supplements, along with a cover note to 
the GNSO Council on 9 Nov 2013 @ 16:00 UTC.

Thank you for everyone’s contribution and I look forward to seeing many of you 
in BA.

Thank you.  B

Berry Cobb
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
720.839.5735
mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
@berrycobb





* * *

This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may 
well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice 
of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete 
this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any 
purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your 
cooperation.

* * *

To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, 
unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in 
this communication  (including any attachments) is not intended or written to 
be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under 
the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) 
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters 
addressed herein.

Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00