[At-Large] R: GNSO Council

Sun Nov 18 20:02:55 UTC 2012

To make it clear for those who do not wish to review the transcript 
of MP3, this is what happened:

- For the motion to have passed, it needed a majority of both GNSO 
Council houses. That is, 4 of 7 votes from the Contracted Party House 
(CPH) and 7 of 13 votes from the Non-contracted Party House (NCPH).
- The CPH voted unanimously for the motion.
- The 5 NCSG members present voted no. One NCSG member was missing 
with no proxy given, and that is equivalent to an abstention which 
counts as a no.
- 4 Commercial SG members voted yes, as did the NomCom appointee to 
that house. The two IPC Councillors abstained (which counts as a no)
- As per the GNSO rules those abstaining must provide a reason or explanation.
- Prior to asking for the reasons, the Chair reminded the Councillors 
that an abstention counts as a no - an issue that is covered by a 
6-page (!!) section of the GNSO Operating Rules and Procedures. (The 
chair's reminder was deemed by some after the meeting to be an 
attempt to affect the vote).
- The first Councillor answered that he abstained because the Red 
Cross was a client of his.
- The second Councillor, who had just been appointed and this was his 
first Council meeting. said that if this is how abstentions were 
counted, he would change his vote to yes. It is unclear if he had 
abstained because he thought that this was a IPC position, or if he 
abstained because being new, he was unfamiliar with the issue.
- That still left the vote at 6 yeses, and the motion failed.
- As the meeting continued, the Councillor who abstained realized or 
was informed that his conflict needed to be noted (which it had been 
in his SoI) but that it need not have stopped him from voting and 
ignoring the perceived conflict, he would have voted yes (Councillors 
from contracted parties often vote on issues in which they have a 
material interest - it is completely normal for the GNSO).
- This was raised in the meeting, and there might have been a 
decision to re-hold the vote, but two of the Councillors who had 
voted had now left the meeting without naming a proxy, and the chair 
ruled that it was not proper to redo the vote under those conditions, 
so it held.
- Although not discussed in the meeting, the Councillor who abstained 
had several other remedies even if his abstention had been required 
under the rules. The IPC could have directed his vote if that concept 
is in their rules, he could have named a proxy to vote on lieu of 
him, or he could have named an alternate person to sit in that 
meeting in his place.

So the bottom line is that if all of the Councillors had been aware 
of the GNSO rules, the vote would almost surely have passed.

At this point, I assume (but do not know for a fact) that the motion 
will be made again during the December meeting.

See additional comments below.

At 18/11/2012 11:36 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>Just as a funny note on a serious issue - if you go to the transcript of the
>decision Jonathan Robinson - Chair - is reported to have said: "So I think
>that's the poison that we have to take", while he (obviously) said " So I
>think that's the position that we have to take", as can be clearly heard on
>the MP3.
>
>The question is how we do get out of this problem. The GNSO Council will
>reconvene in December, a vote by the Board is expected in January.
>Is there any way we can come to a position on the Council that will not
>result in a vote count and a motion passing by one vote?
>While this matter is on the capable hands of the GNSO Council, we have to be
>aware that at the end of the day it will end up upon the Board, who needs to
>rule either by giving the exception to IOC/RC that the GAC wants or to give
>a rock solid argument for not to.

Certainly anything is possible, but the Board in its September 
resolution, has already given a strong indication that it favours a 
solution very similar to the motion being discussed, that is protect 
the names temporarily pending the PDP. For the record, the DT 
recommendation was drafted before the Board motion, so presumably the 
Board heard about it and decided it was a good idea.

It is unclear (to me) whether any explanation would be rock-solid 
enough for the GAC at this time. But perhaps I am just not 
sufficiently imaginative!

>My question is, can ALAC propose a compromise position? Can we work, for
>instance, on these points:
>- a PDP will have to be set, which honors the principle that policy is made
>bottom-up and not by lobbying the Board

That is already ongoing (the PDP). Lobbying is of course always a 
possibility, and the Board does have the ability to over-rule a PDP 
if it is sufficiently motivated, although the effect on the community 
of doing so in this case would certainly be interesting.

>- while the PDP is running business is run as usual, i.e. no block on
>registrations will be in effect, knowing that the result of the PDP might
>result in cancellation of the registrations (if any have become effective in
>the meantime), which honors the principle that you cannot change the status
>quo while the decision process is running

The concept of registrations being cancelled has never been 
discussed, and I would think it HIGHLY unlikely. In the normal course 
of events, the names being added to a reserved names list would 
likely stop them from being re-allocated if they ever expire. (Note, 
there are many names on the reserved names list which exist - 
iana.org being one.)

Of course, current practice these days is that even if the current 
registrant drops a name, the registrar often transfers it to someone 
else, preventing it from dropping. That practice could be expressly 
forbidden in this particular case however.

>This is very much what Volker Greimann (Registrar Stakeholder Group) is
>proposing, so it might not be just an isolated voice. Alan has participated
>to the Council discussions, so he might bring more light to the issue.

Not quite. What Volker has been advocating is that the names be 
allowed to be entered during the new TLD Sunrise period, but not 
actually registered. If the PDP results in recommending that the 
names be reserved, they could not be allocated. If the PDP allowed 
the names to be used, those who entered the names during the sunrise 
period would be given first refusal at the names. Essentially what 
Volker is saying is that we should protect the rights of other 
prospective registrants of those names (and for that matter the Red 
Cross and IOC) in case the PDP allows their general registration. 
Although I cannot speak for the DT, I suspect that this idea might 
have had DT support if it had ever been mentioned.

Alan

>R.
>
>
>-----Messaggio originale-----
>Da: at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>[mailto:at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Evan
>Leibovitch
>Inviato: domenica 18 novembre 2012 17:02
>A: At-Large Worldwide
>Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] GNSO Council
>
>I agree with Adam.
>
>It is the Board's massive tactical error in brinksmanship to have forced an
>"all or none" approach to the IOC and Red Cross, in which case the answer
>was "if that is the only choice, then the answer is 'none' ".
>
>In so easily bowing to pressure from lobbyists and the GAC above the
>interests of the rest of the community, ICANN's Board has circumvented any
>thoughtful conversation on how to protect non-trademark names in the public
>interest. It bears complete responsibility for the embarrassment it has
>already brought upon the organization in this regard.
>
>- Evan
>
>
>
>
>On 18 November 2012 10:12, Roberto Gaetano
><roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Any comment to the recent GNSO Council vote about not granting
> > temporary protection to IOC/RC? Am I the only one who thinks that the
> > next Board meeting will be hot (and potentially embarrassing)?
> >
> > Just for the record, I believe that Volker's proposed (but not
> > accepted) amendment could be the basis for a compromise solution -
> > while at the same time I maintain the point that we should not open
> > the door to different categories of future reservations other than
> > those already included in the guidelines until a PDP produces a
>recommendation.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > R.
> >
> >
> >
> > http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20121115-en.mp3
> >
> > http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-15nov12-en.pdf
> >
> > http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/chat-transcript-council-15nov12-en.p
> > df (interesting to understand the issue Jonathan is facing before
> > deciding that the vote was valid)
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > At-Large mailing list
> > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> >
> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> >
>
>
>
>--
>Evan Leibovitch
>Toronto Canada
>
>Em: evan at telly dot org
>Sk: evanleibovitch
>Tw: el56
>_______________________________________________
>At-Large mailing list
>At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
>At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
>_______________________________________________
>At-Large mailing list
>At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
>At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org