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.