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

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ron and Committee Members:

Off the cuff, I think there are two approaches to Ron's second question:

(1)  How many times in a given period can a motion be reintroduced

And/or

(2)  How much time must elapse before a failed motion can be reintroduced?

The legal, government, commercial, non-profit and academic worlds probably
have a jillion examples for each.  So any decision this group reaches will
be, by some measure, arbitrary.  :)

Therefore, I will start the bidding at:  (1) twice, total and (2) 12
calendar months.

Thoughts?

J.






On 6/4/13 16:18, "Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>Agree with Avri re 1-2; but would like a clarification as to why this
>would
>need to be on the 'consent' agenda.  Can one of the lawyers in our midst
>clarify that for us?
>
>Regarding what James noted as avoiding a 'zombie motion' (as in one that
>will never die) I agree that it would make sense to have a limit on how
>many
>times a motion can be resubmitted.
>
>How many times does the Committee think would be appropriate?
>
>Kind regards,
>
>RA
>
>Ron Andruff
>RNA Partners
>www.rnapartners.com
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:43
>To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a
>Motion
>Importance: High
>
>
>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.
>
>