Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Sounds like a good task for the group.

We also need to include as a base the new PDP requirements that include a 
individual councilor based right of deferral on PDP votes.  Or perhaps we even 
need to discuss if this is a good reason given the requirements these days for 
posting of motions and reports weeks in advance of any meeting.  The deferral 
made/makes a lot of sense when the information is still raw, or perhaps 
incomplete. But whether it makes sense in those cases where a SG/C has had the 
information in a stable format for weeks, is indeed debatable - in the days 
when the practice started, often a report was made available a few days before 
a vote.

Should be an interesting discussion.  I am glad the council called for the 
intial research.

avri



On 15 Mar 2012, at 17:58, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> All,
>  
> In addition to the tasks we took at our meeting the SCI is asked by the GNSO 
> council to look at the issue of GNSO Council deferral requests for motions.
> As we agreed to reconvene after mid of April it would be helpful to prepare a 
> little in specifying the problem in more detail. Looking into how in the past 
> the council handled deferrals would be useful.
>  
> I'd therefore like to ask Marika whether staff would take over this survey.
>  
> From my point of view the following criteria could apply for this survey:
> - starting with council meetings under the new house structure
> - type, name and date of motion deferred
> - deferral requested by which SG/constituency
> - rationale given for the request
> - repeated request for deferral if applicable?
>  
> Please add any criteria which may be useful.
>  
>  
> Best regards
> Wolf-Ulrich