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

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Jeff,

You have been been added to the SCI mailing list 
gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> with 
public archives at:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/

Thank you.
Kind regards,

Glen

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://gnso.icann.org


De : owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Ron Andruff
Envoyé : mercredi 2 janvier 2013 18:20
À : 'Jonathan Robinson'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Cc : 'Neuman, Jeff'
Objet : RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task

Dear all,

First, allow me to wish everyone a healthy, happy and abundant 2013!

Jonathan/Jeff: Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the SCI.  
To get all of the SCI members up to speed on what is being discussed, could you 
kindly provide us with some background information vis-à-vis what the specific 
motion was, and what caused it to come back to the Council in (as I understand 
it) virtually the same wording?  That will be helpful for our discussion.

Jeff: By way of this email, I am asking staff (pursuant to the SCI Charter) to 
add your email address to the discussion list until this matter has been fully 
explored and a recommendation has been sent back to Council.

Kind regards,

RA

Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.

________________________________
From: 
owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
 [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 5:50 AM
To: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>; 
gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff'
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task

All,

Jeff Neuman raised a point on the GNSO Council list that the question being 
posed to the SCI should be a simpler one focussed on the general principle not 
the specific item that caused us to question the principle.  I am in agreement 
with this.

Therefore my suggestion is that the SCI focus on the essential question i.e. 
under what circumstances is it acceptable / permissible for a motion to be 
submitted to the GNSO Council when such a motion is identical to one that has 
been previously voted down by the Council.

Jeff put it well and I am support of his formulation of the question as follows.

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?

Thank-you.


Jonathan


From: 
owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
 [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 20 December 2012 18:08
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task

All,

from today's council call the task attached was shifted to the SCI.
Looking forward to meeting you later
Wolf-Ulrich