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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

How about 

1 AND (2 or 3)

Some other comments inset.

On 23 Dec 2012, at 07:12, Jonathan Robinson wrote:

> Equally bad for the Council (in my view) is a vote going the "wrong" way
> based on procedural misunderstanding or glitch.

Unfortunately that is a matter of subjective judgement on whether it was a 
glitch or a changed vote (the oops condition or the  twisted arm condition)

This notion that we can go around the process whenever we think there was a 
'wrong' way taken is the most dangerous of prevalent GNSO concepts.  And not 
one that the SCI should take for given, in my opinion.

> 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. 

Be glad to.

Though the specific case in the only case study in the current question, so to 
exclude it from discussion in the SCI as an exemplar, seems a bit problematic 
to me.

> 
> 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.