Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO-INGO Motion for GNSO Council
Hi Greg, I believe that Thomas and others who spoke earlier today tried to explain the reasons why the WG wished to include the SSbSO recommendations in the motion that was presented to the Council. You'll recall that because they are not quite Consensus recommendations the WG accepted that they ought to go into a separate Resolved clause, for the purpose of highlighting them to the Council and the rest of the GNSO community, so that they can be discussed and, if appropriate, voted on. Hopefully this objective was achieved to some extent. It may be that, after further reflection and consultation with their respective SGs and Constituencies, the Council will decide to go ahead to vote on some or all of the SSbSO recommendations and so some of us sought to clarify the Council's options, including not putting non-Consensus recommendations to the vote (among other options). The uncertainty and confusion that you may have heard coming from some Councilors and participants may be due in part to the fact that the Council typically only votes on WG recommendations that achieved Consensus. The fact that there is a number of SSbSO recommendations from this WG coupled with the complexity and level of detail encompassed by the WG's recommendations means that the Council is in somewhat uncharted territory in this regard. Berry and I will continue to track the community and Council discussions on this issue in the lead-up to the Council meeting on Wednesday. I hope this helps. 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 * One World. One Internet. * From: <Shatan>, "Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Saturday, November 16, 2013 1:52 PM To: "'Gomes, Chuck'" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, Berry Cobb Mail <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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 ³positive² 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 can¹t 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 don¹t even care whether I support what is in Resolution 5 > or not. This is purely a procedural question. However, I am concerned that > somehow ³procedure² is being used to achieve a ³substantive² 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 ³minority rule² 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 > www.reedsmith.com > > > > > From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [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; 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; > 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 > > > > * One World. One Internet. * > > > > From: <Neuman>, Jeff <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Saturday, November 9, 2013 10:52 AM > To: "'Gomes, Chuck'" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Berry Cobb Mail > <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>, > Thomas Rickert <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] On >> Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck >> Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 10:46 AM >> To: Berry Cobb; 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] On >> Behalf Of Berry Cobb >> Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 10:34 AM >> To: 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 >> @berrycobb >> >> >> >> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 08:15 >> To: Berry Cobb; 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] On >> Behalf Of Berry Cobb >> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 7:30 PM >> To: 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. I¹m >> awaiting input from the GCO about the two issues we discussed in today¹s 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 everyone¹s 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 >> @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 > Attachment:
smime.p7s
|