Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion
hi all, i'll join the parade in favor of "not too many bites at the apple", and like James' initial bid. mikey On Jun 4, 2013, at 4:26 PM, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. >> >> > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) Attachment:
smime.p7s
|