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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 5 Jun 2013, at 20:27, Marika Konings wrote:

> 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?

Is an amended motion the same motion.  I think it needs to be the very same 
motion or derivatives based on amendments done in meetings.

A re-crafted motion with new information that was not added as amendment, seems 
to me to be a new motion, no mater how similar.

Of course, that opens up the possibility that if people were not being 
collegial, purely hypothetically, a similar motion could be submitted each 
month ad infinitum.  IS there ay provision for rejection of a motion without 
voting it down.

>       • 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?

As I remember this courtesy is also extend in some form to ACs who have 
requested a issues report.  Do I remember correctly (I know, I could check).

Perhaps this is the rule that should just be carried forward to all motions.

>       • 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?

I agree  Until some of the recent statements, I have thought of this a much 
more of a proximity problem.  I.e.  in the same meeting, at the next meeting or 
2 at the latest..

> If these questions were already considered, please feel free to ignore.

I do not think we even got close to any of these issues.
thanks

as for a repeat clause.  How about once and in extraordinary circumstances (at 
the leadership's, C+VC, discretion) twice.

avri