ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-improvem-impl-sc]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER: Consensus Call: Waiver of 10-Day Motion Deadline and Resubmission of Motions
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 17:22:11 -0400

Hi,

following Wolf-Ulrich's fine example:

The letter has been shared with the  NCSG Policy Committee.
There was no objection.
On behalf of the NCSG: agreed!

avri

On 29-Sep-15 15:00, WUKnoben wrote:
> All,
>  
> the letter has been shared with the ISPCP constituency. There was no
> objection.
> On behalf of the constituency: agreed!
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
>  
> *From:* Julie Hedlund <mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 29, 2015 7:51 PM
> *To:* gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
> *Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER: Consensus Call: Waiver of
> 10-Day Motion Deadline and Resubmission of Motions
>  
> Dear SCI members,
>  
> This is a reminder that the */consensus call /*described below ends at
> */COB today, 29 September 2015.   As noted below, i/**/f there are no
> objections or changes received by the deadline/**/, the letter will be
> presumed to be accepted by full consensus./*
>  
> Kind regards,
> Julie
>  
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>  
> From: <owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>> on behalf of Julie
> Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>>
> Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 10:40 AM
> To: "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] Consensus Call: Waiver of 10-Day
> Motion Deadline and Resubmission of Motions
>  
>
>     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 email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy