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

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

Good Group! 


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: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 11:05 AM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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
>