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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I support 1-3.  As I understand it one would need to meet all 3 conditions, 
otherwise there would be no stopping it being on every agenda.

Also I thought some wanted to add a rate throttling mechanism or a maximum 
count.

I agree 4 is superfluous since any council member can ask for something to be 
taken off the consent agenda, not that i expect a resubmitted motion would ever 
make the consent agenda.


avri


On 4 Jun 2013, at 16:31, Julie Hedlund wrote:

> 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>
> Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:42 PM
> To: Ron Andruff <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, James Bladel 
> <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" 
> <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: 'Jennifer Standiford' <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] On Behalf Of James M. 
> Bladel?Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:51 PM?To: 
> 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.