RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task

["Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri,

I believe I understand your concerns and the specific circumstances that
give rise to them.
My personal opinion about the specific circumstances were that we had a new
councillor who was not aware of the consequences of his action.
He should have been but that is a different issue.  Effective training and
preparation of councillors is important.

Equally bad for the Council (in my view) is a vote going the "wrong" way
based on procedural misunderstanding or glitch.
The outcome should represent the intention of the Councillors (or the groups
directing their votes) and certainly not be an accident of a procedure. 

You and I should probably discuss this specific case one to one early in the
new year. 

As far as the SCI is concerned my view is that we should, as far as
possible, focus on the general issue.
Our response should cover the specific item that gave rise to the question
but not be solely driven by it.

e.g. A motion is defeated.  The proposer is simply not happy or believes
that councillors can be persuaded to vote differently next time.

Question: With your three below, are they:

1 AND 2 AND 3 

Or are they

1 OR 2 OR 3

I suggest the latter.

Thanks,

Jonathan 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: 23 December 2012 11:16
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task



On 23 Dec 2012, at 05:49, Jonathan Robinson wrote:

>  
> The question should simply be "should there be any restrictions on
resubmitting motions that previously appeared before the Council?  If so,
what should those restrictions be and are there any exceptions?
>  


I think that the answer is yes there must be restrictions. I suggest the
following 3

1. there should be an interval of several months 2. there should have been a
substantive change to the motion 3. there should be a change in the
countervailing conditions.

Reasons that are not acceptable:

-  I did not understand how I should vote
-  I now see the error of my vote

Otherwise, there is no reason to not bring up a losing motion each and every
meeting.

And things that should never be accepted is a chair explaining the way to
vote after a vote has already been cast.  It is very difficult to not see
that as vote manipulation.

There should be not exceptions, and the Chair should not have discretion in
this matter.  The impression of a chair losing his or her neutrality by
appearing to manipulate a vote is a very bad thing for the g-council.

avri