Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed Language Concerning 10-Day Waiver and Resubmitted Motions

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I don’t see why we can’t (or shouldn’t) consider readability. Note that the 
language being suggested is only meant to be a starting point, not a final 
draft.

Having said that, I don’t personally find this language to be overly complex, 
but that may very well be because I’ve been paying far more attention to this 
topic than a typical community member who is not aware of SCI projects and 
discussions.

On Jun 18, 2015, at 2:02 AM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> (without liaison hat on)
> 
> I have a question: does it seem like we are complicating the rules to
> the point that it will take lawyers to read and interpret them.  I read
> the language below and found I had to read it multiple times to get a
> clear view of what it was saying.
> 
> Is there are chance we might consider readability when making changes?
> And perhaps doing a readability pass though the operating procedures at
> some point? 
> 
> avri
> 
> On 16-Jun-15 15:48, Julie Hedlund wrote:
>> Dear Anne and SCI members,
>> 
>> As discussed on our call on 04 June, Amr and staff considered draft
>> language concerning the treatment of resubmitted motions with respect
>> to the 10-day waiver rule.  After reviewing the language that Amr had
>> referenced at the meeting, and that had been suggested by Mary Wong
>> last year when this issue was first discussed, we decided that
>> language seemed to address the issue succinctly.  Here is the language
>> [in brackets/highlighted] following the last two sentences of Section
>> 3.3.2 Submission of Reports and Motions.
>> 
>> "If these requirements are not met, the motion shall not be
>> considered submitted for the next Council meeting. For the avoidance
>> of doubt, if the motion is proposed again for a subsequent Council
>> meeting, it shall not be considered a resubmitted motion under the
>> rules for Resubmission of a Motion in these Operating Procedures.
>> [Resubmitted motions made pursuant to Section 4.3.3 of these Operating
>> Procedures after the Submission Deadline must meet these requirements
>> in addition to those detailed in Section 4.3.3 in order to be eligible
>> for consideration by the GNSO Council under this Section 3.3.2.]"
>> 
>> For your reference, I have included below the full text from Sections
>> 3.3.2 and 4.3.3.
>> 
>> The next SCI meeting will be held in Buenos Aires on Saturday, 20
>> June, from 0745 to 0845 local time (1045 UTC) during which the SCI can
>> discuss the proposed language.  Of course, you may also wish to send
>> comments to the list prior to the meeting.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Julie
>> 
>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>> *
>> *
>> *Excerpted from the GNSO Operating Procedures, v9 (13 November 2014)*
>> 
>> 
>>      3.3.2 Submission of Reports and Motions
>> 
>> Reports and motions should be submitted to the GNSO Council for
>> inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than *23h59
>> Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar*/**//days
>> /before the GNSO Council meeting.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> If a motion is submitted after the Submission Deadline, the GNSO
>> Council shall consider the motion if the following requirements are met:
>> 
>> a.     The motion (including any report or other supporting
>> documentation) is submitted to the GNSO Council at least 24 hours in
>> advance of the GNSO Council meeting;
>> 
>> b.     The motion is accompanied by a request to consider the motion
>> despite submission after the Submission Deadline (a “Request for
>> Consideration”);
>> 
>> c.     A vote on the Request for Consideration shall be called as the
>> first order of business for the agenda item that deals with the
>> motion. The vote on the Request for Consideration must be unanimous
>> (i.e., all Councilors or their proxies must vote and all votes cast
>> must be in favor of considering the motion at such GNSO Council
>> meeting) for the motion to be considered at such GNSO Council meeting.
>> 
>> If these requirements are not met, the motion shall not be considered
>> submitted for the next Council meeting. For the avoidance of doubt, if
>> the motion is proposed again for a subsequent Council meeting, it
>> shall not be considered a resubmitted motion under the rules for
>> Resubmission of a Motion in these Operating Procedures. 
>> 
>> 
>>        4.3.3    _Resubmission of a Motion_: If a motion has been
>>        voted on by the GNSO Council and not adopted, that motion may
>>        be resubmitted to the Council for consideration at a
>>        subsequent meeting of the Council, subject to the following
>>        criteria:
>> 
>> 
>>        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.
>> 
>> 
>>        2.     _Publication_: The text and explanation of the
>>        resubmitted motion must be published (_i.e._, circulated to
>>        the Council mailing list) no later than the deadline for
>>        submitting the motion.
>> 
>> 
>>        3.     _Second_:  Upon the second resubmission of a motion
>>        (_i.e._, the third time the same motion comes before the
>>        Council), the motion must be seconded by a Councilor from each
>>        house as a prerequisite for placing the resubmitted motion on
>>        the consent agenda.
>> 
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>