Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Anne,

On Jan 28, 2015, at 7:18 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Thanks Amr.  As I understand it, you do favor the taking up of the 10 day 
> waiver rule work in connection with the resubmission of motions sooner rather 
> than later

Yes…, that is correct. I do, however, believe we need to place this in the 
correct context when explaining our rationale to the council. I had offered the 
amendment to the council motion regarding the 10-day rule waiver, making sure 
that it was clear to the councillors voting on the motion that this did not 
affect the rules regarding resubmission of motions.

To be sure of this, myself, I dug up the SCI email archives and transcripts 
that supported my belief; that this was indeed the intent of the SCI. I suggest 
we revisit any and all references in preparation for whatever proposal we 
submit to the council on this matter. It seems to me that we need to be very 
consistent in our own decision-making in order to provide the council with very 
solid and confident recommendations. Since joining the SCI, this committee has 
always been praised for its excessive use of due diligence to come up with 
confident recommendations that have always achieved unanimity in our consensus, 
and until very recently, also the unanimity of council votes on the 
recommendations we provided.

> whereas Avri does not

Avri would need to clarify this herself. My personal understanding (and I may 
be mistaken) was that she was not very much in favour of this being revisited, 
but would abstain from disagreeing with the rest of the committee. If I’ve 
understood her correctly, her strong disagreement was with trying to tackle the 
issue of revision of the GNSO decision-making designations (consensus levels) 
until we have a clearer picture of what the full GNSO review would include. I 
share this same belief.

> and you do favor taking up again with Council the topic of friendly 
> amendments?

Yes…, very much so.

Thanks.

Amr