Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] DOCUMENTING THE CURRENT PROCESS FOR FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS - YOUR INPUT NEEDED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 8 CALL of SCI

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

The draft circulated by Marika seems to capture the current practice quite 
well. I can’t think of anything that is missing. I have only one other comment:

Step 4 of the current practice suggests that the deadline to second a motion is 
up until a vote takes place during a council meeting. This has always been 
true. I’m just wondering whether or not it may be desirable to explicitly point 
this out in the main text. Right now, it’s more clearly stated in one of the 
footnotes to inform the reader about the practice in regards to publishing the 
motion without a seconder as part of the meeting agenda on the council wiki 
page.

Not terribly important, but just a thought. This could be added as a second 
sentence in step 2.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Sep 28, 2015, at 9:55 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Dear SCI MEMBERS –
> Your input and discussion on the list are needed with respect to the document 
> Marika has just resent prior to the October 8 call of the SCI.  This is a 
> draft description of the current process in GNSO Council of the handling of 
> friendly amendments to motion.  This summary, once refined in our October 8 
> call, will be presented to Council as part of our report  in Dublin.
>  
> PLEASE TAKE TIME TO REVIEW AND COMMENT ON THE DRAFT FORWARDED TODAY (AND 
> PREVIOUSLY ON SEPT 17) by MARIKA.  This is sent in a format that can be 
> redlined with your suggested changes.  Your input is especially crucial if 
> you are now or have ever been a Council member.
> Thank you,
> Anne
>  
> <image001.gif>
> 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 | www.LRRLaw.com
>  
>  
> From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 11:41 AM
> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Consensus Call: Waiver of 10-Day 
> Motion Deadline and Resubmission of Motions
>  
> 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> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, 
> Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Monday 28 September 2015 12:29
> To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>, 
> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <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
>  
> <image001.gif>
> 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 | www.LRRLaw.com
>  
>  
>  
> From: 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
> 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.
> 
> 
> 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.