[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For your review and feedback - current GNSO practice in relation to motions
Dear All,
Following on from the meeting today, please find hereunder the message that was
sent by the SCI on 12 December 2012 to the GNSO Council concerning the issue of
deferrals. Do note that in relation to consideration of PDP outputs, the GNSO
Operating Procedures do specify a separate process for postponement, for
example: "At the request of any Council member, for any reason, consideration
of the Final Issue Report may be postponed by not more than one (1) meeting,
provided that the Council member details the rationale for such a postponement.
Consideration of the Final Issue Report may only be postponed for a total of
one (1) meeting, even if multiple Council members request postponement".
As also requested, you will find attached in a word document the current
practice as outlined by Mary which was also part of the SCI request as adopted
by the GNSO Council on 16 April 2015 (which has also been attached). As
discussed during the meeting, you are encouraged to review this first document
ahead of the next meeting and include any comments / edits / suggestions you
may have.
As a reminder, the GNSO Council framed its request to the SCI as follows:
WHEREAS:
1. The SCI submitted to the GNSO Council on 05 March 2015 a Review Request
that noted the following issue:
* Although there is currently a rule regarding the deadline for timely
submission of motions for voting by the GNSO Council (see Section 3.3 of the
Operating Procedures), there is none regarding:
* whether, how and by whom a properly submitted motion is to be
seconded, and
* Treatment of proposed amendments to such motions as either
"friendly" or "unfriendly".
* These have been supported by Council practice to date as opposed to
operating procedural rules.
RESOLVED:
1. The GNSO Council requests that the SCI codifies the existing customary
practices of the GNSO Council (as described above).
2. If the SCI believes that the current practices are inappropriate, the SCI
should convey its reasons for such belief to the Council and develop new
processes to govern the seconding of motions and amendments to motions.
3. The GNSO Council suggests that in carrying out this task the SCI consult
past GNSO Chairs and Councilors as well as commonly accepted guides and
practices (such as Robert's Rules of Order) and other ICANN bodies (such as the
Board and other SO/ACs).
Best regards,
Marika
Deferral of Motions:
The SCI was asked by the council to consider the current GNSO Council informal
practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date
in those situations where a formal process for a deferral is not specifically
provided (for example, certain deferrals are foreseen as part of the GNSO PDP,
see http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-en.pdf). The SCI
discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to
formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the
current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter
of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. For this
reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure
at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state
that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion
in the affirmative or the negative. Given that the current informal practice is
at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in
considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or
her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situation that may
occur with regard to this informal practice.
Attachment:
SCI Review Request - Motions - 5 Mar 2015 v2.docx Attachment:
Current GNSO Council Practice in relation to motions.docx |