Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion
Dear SCI members, Please also consider the questions raised on the list by Marika concerning this issue: * 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? * 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? * 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? Best regards, Julie From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Monday, July 1, 2013 1:51 PM To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion 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
|