[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear SCI members,

As discussed on today's call, we will continue discussion on the list on
re-submission of a motion.  There was agreement on option 2 (see below), but
not on which criteria to include (see comments from Anne and James in their
emails below).

Please send your comments to the list.  This also will be on the agenda at
our next meeting.

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director


Procedure for Re-Submission of a Motion:
 
Option 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx> >
Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:42 PM
To: Ron Andruff <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>, James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> >,
"gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> "
<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> >
Cc: 'Jennifer Standiford' <JStandiford@xxxxxxx <mailto:JStandiford@xxxxxxx>
>
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Action item from SCI
Meeting 06 March Re-Submitting a Motion
 
Ron,
I had wanted to report to SCI that in its full meeting in Beijing, the IPC
agreed to the first two criteria listed in Item 2 of the "one or more high
level criteria" to be set for resubmitting a motion.
 
Anne
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> ] On Behalf Of James M.
Bladel?Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:51 PM?To:
gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
?Cc: Jennifer Standiford?Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re:
Action item from SCI Meeting 06 March -- Re-Submitting a Motion?Importance:
High
 
Hello SCI Team:
 
Last week, Jennifer and I were able to consult with the Registrar
Stakeholder Group (RrSG) on this issue.  We can report that RrSG members
strongly favor Option #2.
 
Additionally, Registrars agree with the proposed criteria listed, -except-
for item #2.4, which they note could be redundant if Items #2.1-#2.3 are
followed.  Finally, RrSG members would like to see the inclusion of some
limitations (per year or minimum time frame) on how frequently a motion may
be re-introduced.
 
We look forward to further discussions on our next call.
 
Thanks--
 
J.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature