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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Yes, I do support that wording in general.

One nit has occured to me since the last time I thought about it, is its
specificity on other possible rules that might apply.  For example, the
council has not approved email voting yet (in fact I thought we were
being tech agnostic in that one).  So I would recommend putting a period
after "without limitation."

But in general yes, I do support it.

avri


On 18-Jun-14 11:32, Ron Andruff wrote:
> 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>
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
>