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

["Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Marika makes some very good points about potential conflicts related to other 
motion provisions.  We may need to go back to the subgroup to study this.  The 
subgroup was Mary, Thomas, me and anyone else?  Anne


Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700
One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725
AAikman@xxxxxxxxx • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original 
message.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 8:21 AM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion



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





----------------------
For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to 
www.lewisandroca.com.

Phoenix (602)262-5311                           Reno (775)823-2900
Tucson (520)622-2090                            Albuquerque (505)764-5400
Las Vegas (702)949-8200                     Silicon Valley (650)391-1380

  This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to 
which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended 
recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to 
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying 
to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.
  In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that 
if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or 
written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of 
avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer