Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RESULTS: 2015 SCI Chair and Vice Chair Selection

[Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx>]

Anne,

Once again, congratulations.  Here are two potential work items that I
would like to suggest as priorities for 2015:

1.  *Clarifying that a "Resubmitted Motion" is Eligible for Waiver of the
10-day Deadline for Submission of a Motion*.   Due to some drafting
inconsistencies between sections of the GNSO Council Operating Procedure,
it was left unclear whether a "resubmitted motion" could be submitted less
than 10 days before a meeting accompanied by a request for waiver of the
10-day deadline.  Either resubmitted motions should be treated the same as
other motions on this score (recognizing that there are other hurdles that
resubmitted motions may have to face), or resubmitted motions are
ineligible for waiver (which would lead to delay in consideration of the
motion and/or calling o special session of the GNSO Council.  This should
be clarified, and the necessary amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures
should be made.

2. *Clarifying and Formalizing the Council's Procedure Regarding
"Friendly Amendments**."*  "Friendly amendments" are not mentioned in the
GNSO Council Operating Procedure. As such, the Council's current use of
friendly amendments is based at best on "oral tradition."  Based on my
research, there is no one generally accepted definition or treatment of "
friendly amendments."

First, there appear to be two approaches to defining what a "friendly
amendment" is:

a.  The more common approach is that *a**n amendment that changes the
meaning of the original motion generally cannot be considered "F**riendly,*"
under any circumstances. Friendly amendments should only clarify or enhance
the original motion.  If a motion is not clearly friendly, the question of
whether it qualifies as friendly should be opened to the floor.
b.  Alternately,* any amendment will be considered "Friendly," *if the
member proposing it says it is, without any opportunity for discussion or
objection

Second, once the amendment there appear to be three basic approaches to
handling motions defined as "Friendly":

x.  *No Friendly Amendments.*  This is the position in Robert's Rules of
Order, applied strictly.  Any amendment to a motion must be discussed and
voted on separately from the (unamended) motion.  As one commentator
explained "Once a motion has been made, seconded, and stated by the chair,
it belongs to the group as a whole, not to the individual who first
proposed it. It is the group as a whole that must accept or reject any
proposed amendment, whatever the intent of the proposer. The maker of the
motion, and the seconder, have the same rights as the other members of the
group – no more and no less."
y.  *If the Movant and Second (of the original motion) approve and there is
no objection from the floor, the motion is amended automatically.
 (Variation: there must be full consensus on the amendment for the motion
to be amended automatically*.*)*   If there is any objection (or lack of
consensus) by any member, the amendment must be discussed and voted on
separately from the motion.
z.  *To be Friendly, the Movant and Second of the original motion must
approve; if they approve, the motion is amended automatically.*  The
unamended motion disappears and is replaced by the amended motion, without
any discussion of or opportunity to vote on the original motion, and
without any discussion about whether the amendment is appropriate.

Based on recent practice, it appears that the GNSO Council falls into the
last category in each list (i.e., (b) and (z)), but there is no evidence
that this was a conscious decision.  I believe that a somewhat more
restrictive approach is appropriate -- basically (a) and (y) above.  The
SCI should consider this and then clarify and formalize GNSO treatment to
avoid confusion and potential gaming.

I look forward to your thoughts and the thoughts of the group

Greg Shatan



*Gregory S. Shatan **|* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*

*666 Third Avenue **|** New York, NY 10017-5621*

*Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022

*Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428

*gsshatan@xxxxxxxxxxx <gsshatan@xxxxxxxxxxx>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx <gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx> *

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
>  Many thanks to all who expressed their good wishes to me and to Lori.  I
> look forward to continuing to work with all of you and thank you for  your
> vote of confidence.  Unless others have a different thought, I believe we
> should focus on a letter to GNSO Council outlining projects that were
> summarized by Ron in the LA meeting that may be useful to them and
> submitting the letter as a request for further direction regarding
> priorities for next year.  I will get with Julie to schedule a call in
> January.
>
>
>
> *Please reply to all with your comments regarding the bullet points/SCI
> priorities that should be mentioned in the letter to Council.*    My goal
> will be to draft a letter and present it for discussion by SCI in a January
> call.  It would be good if we could present the letter to Council in
> sufficient time before Singapore to permit discussion by Council in that
> meeting.
>
>
>
> Finally, simply put, Ron is a hard act to follow so please help me with
> any advice you feel appropriate to maintain the fine working relationship
> that he and Wolf-Ulrich have established between Council and SCI over the
> past several years.
>
>
>
> Happy Holidays to those who are celebrating miracles at this time of year!
>
> Thank you,
>
> Anne
>
>
>
>   *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
>
> *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
>
> *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
>
> *(T) 520.629.4428 <520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <520.879.4725>*
>
> *AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>** | www.LRRLaw.com
> <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Thomas Rickert
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 16, 2014 3:20 AM
> *To:* Greg Shatan
> *Cc:* Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Julie Hedlund; <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RESULTS: 2015 SCI Chair and Vice
> Chair Selection
>
>
>
> Congrats to Anne and Lori!
>
>
>
> I also look forward to working with you.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
>  Am 15.12.2014 um 21:30 schrieb Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
>
>
> Anne and Lori,
>
>
>
> Congratulations to both of you.  I look forward to continuing to work with
> you and the rest of the SCI.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>      *Gregory S. Shatan **|* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
>
> *666 Third Avenue **|** New York, NY 10017-5621*
>
> *Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
>
> *Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
>
> *gsshatan@xxxxxxxxxxx <gsshatan@xxxxxxxxxxx>*
>
> *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx <gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx> *
>
> *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 2:37 PM, <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Congratulations to both Anne and Lori!
>
> I'm looking forward to work with you.
>
>
> And to Ron many thanks for his thoughtful guidance over the last years.
> I'm sure to come crossing you in other challenging "capacities".
>
>
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
> Sent from my personal phone
>
>
> Am 15.12.2014 um 20:12 schrieb Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
>  Dear SCI members,
>
>
>
> The deadline for the call for nominations for the 2015 SCI Chair and Vice
> Chair ended COB Friday, 12 December.  Here are the results of the call for
> nominations:
>
>
>
>  Chair:  Amr Elsader nominated Anne Aikman-Scalese to be Chair of the
> SCI.  Wolf Ulrich-Knoben seconded the nomination.  Anne has accepted the
> nomination and is willing to serve as chair.
>
>
>
> Vice Chair: Cintra Sooknanan indicated that she will not serve a second
> term as Vice Chair.  Lori Schulman nominated herself to serve as Vice
> Chair.  Cintra and Amr seconded the nomination.  Since the SCI Charter
> requires that only a primary member of the SCI (not an alternate) may serve
> as Chair or Vice Chair, the NPOC has agreed that Lori will switch roles
> with Cintra and will serve as the primary member and Cintra will serve as
> the alternate.
>
>
>
> As there were no other nominations for Chair or Vice Chair prior to the
> deadline, and as there is only one nomination for each position, there is
> no need to proceed to an election.  Thus, the 2015 SCI Chair and Vice Chair
> will be Anne Aikman-Scalese and Lori Schulman.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Julie
>
>
>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
> individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this
> message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or
> agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended
> recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
> replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any
> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and
> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the
> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
>