RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action: Re-Submitting a Motion

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Amr and all,

 

Thank you for providing more context to the situation that occurred, which
subsequently brought this item to our agenda.  I was not aware of the timing
that you clarified and that helps to frame the issue more clearly.

 

Regarding your question: Is there a reason why the SCI decided not to
recommend the criteria Mikey dug up regarding a full council vote to
determine wether a motion may or may not be resubmitted (for example??).
This matter is one that has been on our agenda for quite some time and I
(embarrassingly) plead ignorance as to why a full council vote for
re-submission was not taken into account.  Hopefully staff or one of our
members can help us with this one.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ron Andruff

RNA Partners

 <http://www.rnapartners.com> www.rnapartners.com 

 

From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 06:21
To: Julie Hedlund
Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action: Re-Submitting a Motion

 

Hi everyone,

 

Pending Anne's suggestions for an alternative or amendment to criteria #3,
I'd like to share one thought on this topic (which I began discussing when I
was disconnected from yesterday's call).

 

The incident on the GNSO Council, which prompted the drafting of some sort
of guideline to refer to in future incidents requiring the resubmission of a
motion, met with conflicting opinions amongst councillors on wether that
specific motion should be resubmitted or not (that is if I recall
correctly). The argument at the time seemed to be that the first criteria
the SCI has suggested; requiring "a reason to justify the resubmission of a
motion" was not found to be met by all the councillors, in addition to some
of the councillors having dropped off the call when the resubmission request
had been made (this is, of course, covered by the second criteria).

 

My point is that criteria #1, although stating that reason to justify a
resubmission must be provided, fails to specify what a justified reasoning
really is. Criteria #3 doesn't do this either, but at least shows that there
is some support across the houses to the request to resubmit. I think Anne
does have a point in the third criteria being too restrictive, however, if
an alternative is provided, I suggest it somehow addresses what a
justifiable reason is, and/or demonstrates a willingness amongst councillors
to accept a resubmission. Is there a reason why the SCI decided not to
recommend the criteria Mikey dug up regarding a full council vote to
determine wether a motion may or may not be resubmitted (for example??).

 

Thanks.

 

Amr

 

On Sep 10, 2013, at 10:27 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote:





Dear Anne,

 

Thank you very much today for your suggestions for changes to the procedure
for re-submitting a motion.  It would be very helpful if you could consider
putting your suggestions in writing, perhaps by providing changes to the
existing language.  I have included that language below for your reference.

 

Please let me know if I can assist you in any way.

 

Best regards,

 

Julie

 

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

 

Possible Options for Addressing the Re-Submission of a Motion:

 

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: for inclusion on the agenda
as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time
(UTC) on the day, 10 calendar daysbefore the second GNSO Council meeting
following the meeting when the motion first was submitted.

 

2)  Publish the text of the re-submitted motion. Complete no later than the
deadline for submitting a motion: for inclusion on the agenda as soon as
possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the
day, 10 calendar days before the second GNSO Council meeting following the
meeting when the motion first was submitted.

 

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.