ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-improvem-impl-sc]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion
  • From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 10:51:13 -0700

Dear SCI members,

As discussed on our 04 June call, we will continue discussion on
re-submission of a motion at our meeting tomorrow, 02 July.  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).

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 <mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx> >
Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:42 PM
To: Ron Andruff <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>, James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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.


Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy