RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Motion deferrals

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Avri,

I will try and have some of these answers before the meeting.

Thanks,

Glen

-----Message d'origine-----
De : owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Avri Doria
Envoyé : jeudi 19 avril 2012 18:42
À : gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Objet : Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Motion deferrals


Hi,

Thanks for this.

Is the number of total motions out of which the 22 deferrals occurred known?
And in terms of the breakdown, if known that would help.  Knowing the 
percentages of total is always useful in scoping the extent of a behavior

I would also be interested in the rate of growth.  Have deferrals become more 
frequent, and at rate did the become more frequent.

Also, it would be good to have an idea on whether there was a rate difference 
between the various constituencies.

thanks

avri


On 19 Apr 2012, at 03:55, Marika Konings wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> In relation to item 4 on the SCI agenda (deferral of motions), please see 
> below and attached the information gathered by the GNSO Secretariat on the 
> practice of deferrals since the beginning of the bi-cameral Council (October 
> 2009).
> 
> With best regards,
> 
> Marika
> 
> From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx" 
> <gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Motion deferrals
> 
>  
> Dear Marika,
>  
> Please find the list of meeting deferrals attached. (We tried a number 
> of formats and decided that this was the clearest display) The deferrals  
> start from the beginning of the Bi-cameral Council in Seoul, 28 October 2009.
>  
> 22 deferrals in two (2) years in (7) seven months.
> 4 motions were deferred a second time
> 1 motion was deferred a third time
>  
> Type of motions:
> 
> 2  Administrative
> 1 Approve Interim report
> 3 Approve Issues Report
> 3 Approve Final Reports
> 2 Approve Draft Charter
> 1 Approve Working Group  Principles
> 4 Extending Timelines
> 1 Initiate Policy Development process (PDP)
> 1 Response to board Resolution
> 1  Request to change to Module 2 of the Draft  Applicant Guidebook
> 2  WHOIS Studies
> 
>  
> We have noted the trend which was started but not carried on, proposing a 
> motion for discussion before the motion is officially proposed for a Council 
> vote.  
> 09   June 2011: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Working Group
> 
> Type of motion:  presented for discussion only on the Adoption of the 
> IRTP Part B Final Report and Recommendations
> 
>  
> 
> Please let me know if you need more information and if you want it in some 
> tabular form.
> Thank you.
> Kind regards,
>  
> Glen
> Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://gnso.icann.org
>  
> <Motion Deferrals v1.doc>