Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Consensus Call: Waiver of 10-Day Motion Deadline and Resubmission of Motions

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Anne, please find attached the email with an attachment that includes an 
outline of the current procedure for friendly amendments that was sent to the 
SCI on 17 September.

Best regards,

Marika

From: 
<owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>>
 on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" 
<AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Monday 28 September 2015 12:29
To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Consensus Call: Waiver of 10-Day Motion 
Deadline and Resubmission of Motions

Many thanks Julie. We understand the consensus call is open until COB TUESDAY 
September 29 – THAT IS TOMORROW and failure to object is considered consensus 
(as in the past.)  We prefer a positive confirmation of consensus for our 
records so please   - WILL ALL MEMBERS RESPOND BY TUESDAY?

Separately, JULIE, we also do need to have posted to the list the description 
of the current procedure for “friendly amendments” – draft prepared by Mary – 
so that those on the list can review and add any redline comments they have 
based on their experience on Council.  This is about DOCUMENTING the existing 
procedure – not about discussing or recommending changes to it.  For those not 
present on the call, we are going to finalize a version of what we think the 
current procedures are and present that to Council for consideration in Dublin 
as part of our report.  (many thanks to Marika for reminding us there are two 
steps to this exercise that are “in scope” for SCI.)

Anne

[cid:image001.gif@01D0F9E0.E7C285A0]

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel

Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP

One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725

AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> | 
www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/>








From: 
owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
 [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 7:41 AM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Consensus Call: Waiver of 10-Day Motion 
Deadline and Resubmission of Motions
Importance: High

Dear SCI members,

As discussed during the SCI call last week on 17 September, please see below 
the proposed letter from the SCI to the GNSO Council on the issue of the waiver 
of the 10-day motion deadline and resubmission of motions.

This is a consensus call.

Please indicate your agreement with, or objection to, the proposed letter.  If 
there are no objections or changes received by COB Tuesday, 29 September 2015, 
the letter will be presumed to be accepted by full consensus.

Kind regards,
Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

 ------------------------
Dear Jonathan,

On 05 March 2015 the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) 
submitted to the GNSO Council a Review Request (see attached) on the issue of 
whether the waiver of the 10-day deadline for the submission of motions can be 
applied to resubmitted motions.  The Review Request was one of two that the 
Council approved at its meeting on 16 April 2015.  The SCI is continuing to 
discuss the other Review Request from the Council for the SCI to consider 
codifying the current informal procedure for amendments to motions and to 
recommend any changes SCI believes (through full consensus) are appropriate.

The SCI has determined after a review of the GNSO Operating Procedures that by 
its terms as previously approved by Council, the waiver of the 10-day deadline 
for submission of motions does not apply to resubmitted motions. Further, after 
lengthy discussion of the possible issues, the SCI is reluctant to make any 
recommendations to change the current status of the Operating Procedures given 
that no instance of a problem arising in this regard has occurred.   The SCI 
also notes that although changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures are not 
recommended at this time, the SCI could revisit the issue if requested by the 
Council and, specifically, if there is a contentious issue that warrants 
further analysis.

Please let us know whether you or the Council have any questions or require 
further information concerning the SCI's response to this issue request.

Best regards,
Anne and Rudi

Anne Aikman-Scalese, SCI Chair
Rudi Vansnick, SCI Vice-Chair

________________________________

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.

Attachment: image001.gif
Description: image001.gif

--- Begin Message ---

• To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
• Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For your review and feedback - current GNSO practice in relation to motions
• From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 19:12:16 +0000

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 postponement².

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:
> 1. 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".
> 2. 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
<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
Description: Microsoft Office

Attachment: Current GNSO Council Practice in relation to motions.docx
Description: Microsoft Office

--- End Message ---