Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion
Anne, This is the list of members in the sub-group: Anne Aikman-Scalese, Avri Doria, Thomas Rickert and Mary Wong. Thanks, Julie On 6/6/13 1:59 PM, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >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 > Attachment:
smime.p7s
|