RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposal for Deferral of Motions

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

To Avri's question, there has been some discussion on this within the RySG
which I bring forth below for our discussion:

-------------------------------------------------------

It is unlikely that a decision will be any easier to make a year from now
and dealing with the issue now would probably be more efficient in terms of
resource usage because of the recent work of the SC.  Therefore, [we] don't
like option 1.  Option 1 might actually reduce the number of deferral
requests during the year it's under review, but that doesn't solve the
potential for abuse later on.

But [we] don't like option 2 either...too rigid...okay setting a limit of
one deferral as long as there is an exception procedure; for example, one
deferral request shall be automatically allowed unless a simple majority of
Councilors from both houses overrule it and no additional deferrals shall be
allowed except by a simple majority vote of both houses.  We can count on
there being special circumstances where exceptions are appropriate so it is
necessary to allow for them and to do so in a way that requires reasonable
Council support.

Why it is necessary to make the deferred item first on the next agenda?  It
makes sense to put the item early in the agenda so as to minimize the chance
of it not being handled because of an agenda that cannot be completed.
There are always administrative items that need to be handled first.  Also,
sometimes certain Councilors, Staff or guests have to join the call late or
leave the call early, so there needs to be some flexibility to manage such
situations...suggest language like this: "A deferred item should be put as
early in the next agenda as possible with goals to maximize Councilor and
other key player participation and to minimize the chances of there not
being enough time to act on the item."

------------------------------------------------------

I hope to be able to discuss these points on the list or next
teleconference.

Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 3:02 AM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposal for Deferral of Motions 


Thought I had sent this a while ago, but sent it from an unsubscribed
address.

--- against option 2  ---

Can live with status quo

But I do not understand why it was narrowed down to just these two
alternatives when so much more was discussed.

avri