RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Updated drafts of Motion Deadline Waiver & E-Voting proposals for discussion in London

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Mary,

 

Thank you for the comprehensive report and documentation.

 

Can you confirm that Anne's latest editing offer (noted below) - which I
believe Avri supports - has been included?  This may have slipped by on the
list last week.

 

"If rejected , such a motion shall be considered timely submitted for the
next Council meeting and will not be considered to be "resubmitted" for
purposes of the rules on resubmission of a motion.  Further, if rejected,
such a motion may also be dealt with in accordance with all other applicable
Operating Procedures and customary practices, including, without limitation,
the rules for e-mail voting and deferral of motions."  

 

 

Thank you,

 

RA

 

Ron Andruff

ONR Consulting, Inc.

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

 

From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 07:44
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Updated drafts of Motion Deadline Waiver &
E-Voting proposals for discussion in London

 

Dear SCI members,

 

In light of the London meeting approaching rapidly and the SCI's meeting
scheduled for this Saturday 21 June (0730 a.m. London time), I am sending
you for your review the latest drafts of the proposed language for Waiver of
the 10-Day Motion rule and for Remote/Electronic Voting. Essentially, the
following changes were made to the version that was discussed on the last
SCI call:

 

1. In relation to Waiver of the 10-day Motion Deadline, a majority of the
sub-group has made a new recommendation that it believes addresses the
concerns raised by the so-called "Option A" and "Option B" language
discussed in the last SCI call - the new recommendation basically considers
a failed late motion as not submitted and therefore requires it be submitted
again per the usual 10-day rule for the next meeting. Please see the
attached redline for the proposed change.

 

2. In relation to E-Voting, the sub-group is recommending at least one
substantive addition to the proposed language, and requesting that a further
question be brought back to the GNSO Council by Avri as the Council liaison
for clarification:

*       On the addition - the sub-group proposes making it clear that
E-Voting is to be permissible only in cases where a motion has already been
properly submitted for a regular Council meeting but for various reasons
cannot be voted on at that meeting (please see attached redline for the new
language in Section 5.)
*       On the requested clarification - the sub-group notes that the
Council's original request to the SCI mentioned the need for speedy Council
action as there is at present no mechanism by which the Council could vote
outside a regularly scheduled Council meeting. Although it had initially
proceeded on the basis/assumption that the proposed new mechanism of
E-Voting was not intended to extend the time or provide an additional voting
mechanism for those specific Council actions that, at present, are eligible
for Absentee Voting (which takes place 72 hours after a regularly scheduled
Council meeting and applies only to certain listed actions such as
initiating a PDP), the sub-group believes it will be useful to obtain
clarification one way or the other from the Council on this point.

For discussion purposes, I should note that Avri has indicated she does not
support the proposed change to the 10-day Motion Deadline Waiver language,
and the proposal will be further discussed by the full SCI at its London
meeting.

 

A question had also been raised regarding the origin of the four stated
grounds for Absentee Voting in the GNSO Operating Procedures. At the
sub-group's request staff has checked with our colleagues who supported the
original work team that developed the current version of the Procedures.
Their notes indicate that (1) those specific grounds were expressly carried
over from the old GNSO procedures and unchanged in the current version; and
(2) the reason for their inclusion is to encourage full participation and
attendance at GNSO Council meetings (i.e. It should not be easy for a
Councilor to not attend a meeting or participate in discussions therein and
yet be permitted to cast a vote). 

 

I hope this note and the attached documents are helpful.

 

Thanks and cheers

Mary

 

Mary Wong

Senior Policy Director

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)

Telephone: +1 603 574 4892

Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>