Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Greg and all,

I know I’ve brought this up repetitively and I hate being a nag, but there’s 
still an inconvenient loophole in this text regarding resubmission of motions. 
On its meeting of March 26th, 2014, the GNSO Council approved the SCI 
recommendation to amend the GNSO Operating Procedures by adding sections 4.3.3 
and 4.3.4 detailing the guidelines of motions being resubmitted. Section 4.3.3, 
claus number 1 reads as follows:

> “1. Explanation: The Councilor submitting the motion must also submit an 
> explanation for the resubmission of the motion. The explanation need not 
> accompany the motion when it is resubmitted; however, the explanation must be 
> submitted no later than the deadline for submitting the motion (i.e., no 
> later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day 10 calendar days 
> before the Council meeting at which the motion is to be reconsidered). The 
> explanation does not need to meet any requirements other than being submitted 
> in a timely manner.”

If the SCI determines that it would like the 10-day rule waiver to also apply 
to motions being resubmitted (and not exclusively to motions being submitted 
for the first time) in its recommendation to the Council, then there needs to 
be clarifying text to that effect. If the SCI does not recommend that the 
waiver should apply to resubmitted motions, then no further action is 
necessary. If the former is true, and not the latter, the the way I read it, 
the required clarification should either be added as a fourth bullet to 3.3.2 
referencing 4.3.3, or perhaps an added numbered item to 4.3.4 (Limitations and 
Exceptions to Resubmission of a Motion) referring to the waiver rule in 3.3.2. 
Without these changes, I can’t see how the text of the operating procedures 
will support the waiver rule being applied to resubmitted motions in the event 
that the need arises.

Thanks.

Amr

On Apr 22, 2014, at 9:53 PM, Shatan, Gregory S. <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> As discussed today on the SCI call, I agree with Marika’s comment below, and 
> I have deleted the sentence in question.  In the attached draft, I have 
> accepted all the changes from the prior draft and then deleted that sentence. 
>  There were no other comments on the list or on the call. 
>  
> I would suggest that this draft should be considered final (subject only to 
> “accepting” the deletion of the sentence so that this is a clean document) 
> for purposes of moving to the next step with this amendment to the Operating 
> Procedures.
> 
> Best regards,
>  
> Greg
>  
> Gregory S. Shatan 
> Partner 
> Reed Smith LLP
> 599 Lexington Avenue
> New York, NY 10022
> 212.549.0275 (Phone)
> 917.816.6428 (Mobile)
> 212.521.5450 (Fax)
> gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> www.reedsmith.com
>  
>  
>  
> From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:34 AM
> To: Shatan, Gregory S.; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating 
> Procedures: Revised Draft
>  
> Thanks, Greg. I'm still not clear to why it would say 'For the avoidance of 
> doubt, if the requirements above are not met, the motion shall not be 
> considered “submitted”? Why can't it be considered submitted, but just not 
> eligible to be considered for a vote at the meeting? The current practice is 
> also that if a motion is submitted after the deadline it may get discussed, 
> just not voted on during the meeting, but there is no need to resubmit it for 
> the next meeting as it is already considered submitted and automatically 
> carried over. Maybe I'm missing something?
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> Marika 
>  
> From: <Shatan>, "Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thursday 17 April 2014 03:40
> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating 
> Procedures: Revised Draft
>  
> All:
>  
> Following up on our last meeting, I attach a revised version of the amendment 
> to the Operating Procedures dealing with “late” submission of a motion, with 
> my revisions marked in “track changes.” 
>  
> I look forward to your comments.
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> Greg
>  
> Gregory S. Shatan
> Deputy Chair | Tech Transactions Group
> IP | Technology | Media
> ReedSmithLLP
> The business of relationships
> 599 Lexington Avenue
> New York, NY 10022
> 212.549.0275 | Phone
> 917.816.6428 | Mobile
> 212.521.5450 | Fax
> gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> www.reedsmith.com
>  
>  
> * * *
> This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may 
> well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on 
> notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then 
> delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any 
> purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your 
> cooperation.
> * * *
> To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you 
> that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice 
> contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not intended 
> or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding 
> penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local 
> provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any 
> tax-related matters addressed herein.
> Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
> <Motion waiver draft language - 22 April 2014.DOC>