RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re-Submitting a Motion - Revision 20 February

["Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>]

I thought we would be presenting the possibility of two out of the three higher 
level "conjunctive" criteria to our constituencies.  I don't see all three 
together flying at IPC.

[cid:144160621@21022013-33E4]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700
One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725
AAikman@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx> • 
www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman>
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original 
message.


________________________________
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 4:46 PM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx; Julie Hedlund
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re-Submitting a Motion - Revision 20 
February


Thanks for the quick turnaround, Julie!


It looks fine to me - one question I had for everyone, in light of some of the 
discussion earlier today, is whether we ought to include a short explanatory 
note after setting out the options. Basically, I had in mind something like 
this:


Notes:

- 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 are conjunctive criteria, i.e. all three steps have to be 
completed.

- 2.3 and 2.4 relate only to how the resubmitted motion is placed back on the 
Council's agenda, i.e. they take place prior to the Council's actually 
discussing (and voting on) the actual substance of the resubmitted motion, and 
allow for the possibility of there being a vote on whether to accept the 
resubmission itself in the first place.


Cheers

Mary


Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
http://ssrn.com/author=437584


>>>

From:


Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>


To:


"gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>


Date:


2/20/2013 6:15 PM


Subject:


[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re-Submitting a Motion - Revision 20 February


Dear SCI members,


Based on our discussion today, please see below revised options.  Please let me 
know if you have any changes.  Once the SCI agrees to the options for 
consideration, the action is for members to circulate them to their 
Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups.  These also are posted to the wiki.


Best regards,


Julie


Julie Hedlund, Policy Director


Possible Options for Addressing the Re-Submission of a Motion:


1.  Leave up to discretion of the Chair


2.  Set one or more high-level criteria (in this order):


1)  Provide a reasoning to justify the resubmission of a motion. Complete no 
later than the deadline for submitting a motion --  8 days prior to  the next 
GNSO Council meeting.

2)  Publish the text of the re-submitted motion. Complete no later than the 
deadline for submitting a motion --  8 days prior to  the next GNSO Council 
meeting.

3)  Require a seconder of the motion from each house as a prerequisite for 
placing the re-submission of the motion on the consent agenda.

4)  Allow a councilor to ask for the re-submission of the motion to be taken 
off the consent agenda and to request a Council vote on whether to accept the 
re-submission.






________________________________

For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to 
www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>.

Phoenix (602)262-5311           Reno (775)823-2900
Tucson (520)622-2090            Albuquerque (505)764-5400
Las Vegas (702)949-8200         Silicon Valley (650)391-1380

  This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to 
which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended 
recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to 
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying 
to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.

  In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that 
if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or 
written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of 
avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.