[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FW: Adobe Connect - Note Pod Content from Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

Please find below the notes from this week's SCI meeting. With regard to the 
request to obtain further information on the process the Board uses for 
deferrals, we can report that there is currently no formal procedure used by 
the Board. In practice, the Board can and does defer action on items at the 
discretion of the Board and Chair, but it doesn't follow a formal procedure.

Please note that the next meeting is scheduled F2F in Prague on Sunday 24 June 
from 8.00 – 9.00 local time in conference room Congress III.

With best regards,

Marika

From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Reply-To: Marika Konings 
<marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Adobe Connect - Note Pod Content from Standing Committee on 
Improvements Implementation


SCI Meeting Agenda - 18 June 2012

1. Roll call

2. Statement of Interests

3. Approval of the agenda

4. Background information (and suggested solutions) on

        - Deferral of Motions

        - Proxy Voting Procedure

        - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP

5. Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda

6. AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague?

Notes:

- Deferral of Motions: Should this remain an informal practice or should it 
become a formal procedure (original question of the GNSO Council)? Some 
expressed support for formalizing this procedure, but some also suggested it 
could continue as an informal practice, with the option to review in a certain 
amount of time. Possible requirements if policy is formalized: deferral only 
for maximum one meeting (although exceptions may have to possible?) /

NCA should also be able to defer motions (not only SG/C) / ony allow deferral 
if information is incomplete (and until information is complete) / One deferral 
per SG or C?.

If SCI response is 'yes' it should be a formal process, it should also include 
a recommendation for how this process should look for GNSO Council 
consideration. Staff to check what process, if any, the Board uses for deferral 
of motions. Issue was also discussed in earlier discussions of PPSC - aren't 
same arguments still valid for keeping it an informal process? Instead of 
formal process, SCI could also consider issuing 'guidance'.

No decision yet on formal or informal process. Wolf to report back to the GNSO 
Council on the status of discussions in the update in Prague - might result in 
further guidance. Consider taking a poll amongst membership - but question 
would need to be clear. Wolf to circulate proposed language to the list re. 
update.