ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-improvem-impl-sc]


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

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

  • To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER re: DOCUMENTING THE CURRENT PROCESS FOR FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS - YOUR INPUT NEEDED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 8 CALL of SCI
  • From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 21:47:31 +0000

Dear SCI members,

I have not seen further comments.  If there are non prior to tomorrow's
call then please see the attached redlined version reflecting comments
provided by Amr and Wolf-Ulrich.

Best regards,
Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

On 10/5/15 2:09 PM, "Julie Hedlund" <owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
on behalf of julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>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
Description: Microsoft Office

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature



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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy