RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Actions: SCI Meeting 07 April 2013 - resubmission of a motion

[<Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Anne, sorry if I was unclear; perhaps I should have said "all of the 
following steps" rather than used the word "criteria". My recollection is that 
the reason behind our recommending Alternative #2 is to have a process that 
would in total represent the satisfaction of a fairly stringent or high 
criteria/standard. 

It wouldn't make sense for just one of the steps outlined to be enough; that's 
why I'm sorry I used the word criteria instead of steps. 

Thanks and cheers 
Mary


Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Faculty Chair, Global IP Partnerships
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


>>> 


From:  
"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx> 

To: 
"gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>, 
"Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx" <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx> 

CC: 
"jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx> 

Date:  
4/9/2013 3:47 PM 

Subject:  
RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Actions: SCI Meeting 07 April 2013 - resubmission 
of a motion 

Mary, the language does not say comply with ALL the following criteria. It says 
"one or more" of the following criteria so that is what is on the agenda for 
discussion at IPC. Anne

Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx [Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Received: Monday, 08 Apr 2013, 8:45pm
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx [gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx]
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Actions: SCI Meeting 07 April 2013

 

Hi Anne, I don't know if this will help but I got a few "clarifying questions" 
(heheh) from members about how it would work, so I created the following 
explanation. Feel free to use/circulate! 


Alternative #1: Leave the decision whether to accept the re-submission and 
place it on the Council's agenda up to the Chair of the GNSO Council 

OR
 

Alternative #2.  Comply with ALL the following criteria, in the following 
order: 


 

1. Re-submitting Councilor must provide the reasoning to justify the 
resubmission of a motion, no later than the usual deadline for submitting an 
original motion --  8 days prior to  the next GNSO Council meeting. 


2. The text of the re-submitted motion must be published, no later than the 
usual deadline for submitting an original motion --  8 days prior to  the next 
GNSO Council meeting. 


3. The re-submitted motion must have a seconder from each house as a 
prerequisite for placing the procedural question of accepting the re-submission 
on the consent agenda at the next GNSO Council meeting. 


4. Any Councilor can ask for the acceptance of re-submission to be taken off 
the consent agenda -- in which case the question whether or not the 
re-submission should even go through goes automatically to a Council vote on 
whether to accept it. 


NOTE: All this is just to decide if the act of re-submission itself is accepted 
-- the actual substance of the motion does not get discussed, or put to a vote, 
until the re-submission is accepted. 


CONTEXT: At a recent Council meeting, a motion was voted on and defeated 
because two Councilors abstained without realizing that an abstention under the 
GNSO Council rules is automatically deemed to be a No vote. The question then 
became whether the motion could be re-submitted and re-voted on, at which point 
it became clear that the GNSO Council rules and procedures do NOT currently 
have a process in place to deal with the question. The SCI was therefore asked 
to look at the issue and recommend such a process. 


 

Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Faculty Chair, Global IP Partnerships
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  ( 
http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php )


>>> 


From:  
"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx> 

To: 
"gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>, 
"julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx" <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx> 

Date:  
4/9/2013 2:13 AM 

Subject:  
RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Actions: SCI Meeting 07 April 2013 

Thanks Julie. Is there any way I could get about 40 hard copies of the draft on 
resubmitting a motion to hand out at the IPC meeting Tuesday afternoon? Thank 
you. Anne

Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)

-----Original Message-----
From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx]
Received: Monday, 08 Apr 2013, 4:44am
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx [gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx]
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Actions: SCI Meeting 07 April 2013

 

Dear SCI members, 



Please see below the actions from the SCI meeting on 07 April 2013 and provide 
any comments or questions to the list.  Our next meeting is scheduled for 01 
May 2013.  A notice will be sent out separately. 



Best regards, 



Julie 



Julie Hedlund, Policy Director 



Notes / Actions: 



1.  Working Group  Survey: Julie will check with ICANN staff who are working 
with the consultants who are developing the ICANN GNSO training modules;  Julie 
and J.Scott will work up a proposal to have the consultants draft a new survey 
based on the feedback received from Mikey. 



2.  Termination/Suspension of a PDP: Julie will prepare a redlined version of 
the PDP Manual and a motion for the SCI to consider to be submitted to the 
Council by Wolf-Ulrich Knoben once it is approved by the SCI. 



3.  Resubmitting a Motion: Under review this week by the ISP and NCUC 
Constituencies. 



4.  SCI Charter Revisions: Continue discussions at the next meeting; Julie and 
Marika provided transcript and background on the development of the original 
charter. 



  





For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to 
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. 










  


For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to 
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.