[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER re: DOCUMENTING THE CURRENT PROCESS FOR FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS - YOUR INPUT NEEDED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 8 CALL of SCI
Dear SCI members, This is a reminder to please send in your comments in advance of Thursday's call. I have attached the document previously compiled by Mary Wong with text added as suggested by Amr and Wolf-Ulrich shown in redline. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director On 9/30/15 4:32 PM, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >I agree that draft covers all relevant points. >Re step 2 I recall that the possibility exists that more than 1 council >members second the motion. This does not affect the process rather it is >kept in the minutes. > >Best regards > >Wolf-Ulrich > >-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >From: Amr Elsadr >Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 6:42 PM >To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne >Cc: Marika Konings ; Julie Hedlund ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx >Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] DOCUMENTING THE CURRENT PROCESS FOR >FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS - YOUR INPUT NEEDED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 8 CALL of SCI > > >Hi, > >The draft circulated by Marika seems to capture the current practice >quite >well. I can¹t 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. I¹m just wondering whether or not it may be desirable to >explicitly point this out in the main text. Right now, it¹s 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 ³friendly amendments² 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 ³in scope² 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. > Attachment:
Current GNSO Council Practice in relation to motions.docx Attachment:
smime.p7s
|