Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion
Apologies if I'm raising questions / issues that have already been considered, but the following questions come to my mind: * Who makes a determination whether it considers a re-submission of a motion or whether it is considers a new motion? Does it have to be identical to be considered a re-submission? If a few words are added or whereas clauses are introduced, does that make it a new motion? * The PDP Manual foresees that 'In the event that the GNSO Council does not approve the initiation of the PDP, not including the possible suspension of further consideration of the Final Issue Report as described above, any Councillor may appeal the denial, and request that the GNSO Council hold a renewed vote on the initiation of the PDP at the next subsequent GNSO Council meeting'. There are no further requirements attached to this 'renewed vote' - would this be considered an exception or would it need to be brought in line with the new requirements if/when approved? * A 12 month period appears to be a long time to be able to reconsider a motion for example, there may be new information brought forward that may result in a change of opinion / vote of a SG/C that may warrant reconsideration of a motion or a certain urgency may require quicker reconsideration. Should a shorter time frame be considered, or at a minimum the possibility of an exception to this timeframe at the discretion of the Chair? If these questions were already considered, please feel free to ignore. Best regards, Marika From: Angie Graves <angie@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thursday 6 June 2013 00:43 To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Ron Andruff <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion Hi All, I agree. Just as a point of clarification, I read "2 total" as 2 REintroductions of a failed motion, meaning that all motions get a total of 3 opportunities to be considered, with all three occurring within a 12-month period. Angie Angie Graves WEB Group, Inc. On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 5:43 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I agree. Let's start with this plus a second from each house. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Mike O'Connor > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 11:30 PM > To: James M. Bladel > Cc: Ron Andruff ; 'Avri Doria' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx > <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: 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 <http://www.rnapartners.com> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> 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 Avri Doria >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:43 >>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 >>> <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> " >>> <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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> >>> [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?Cc >>> <http://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 <tel:651-647-6109> , FAX: 866-280-2356 <tel:866-280-2356> > , WEB: www.haven2.com <http://www.haven2.com> , HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for > Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) > Attachment:
smime.p7s
|