Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Actions re: Current Practice in Relation to Motions
Hi Amr, No apologies necessary and perhaps I was incorrect in capturing the action item from the meeting in Marrakech that the staff should proceed to draft language. However, as this is just draft language staff did anticipate that there would be discussion and consideration on it at the meeting tomorrow at the very least. On your first question if I recall correctly (and Sub Team members can correct me if I am wrong) I think there were two reasons for not starting discussion on a motion without a second. One was that if there was no second and/or one not forthcoming it would be a waste of time to discuss the motion. The other was that a motion without a second might be considered to not have sufficient support for discussion. However, I’ll defer to the Sub Team to provide further clarification. On your second question the Sub Team discussed extensively whether to have a deadline for amendments, but again if I recall correctly (and here again I defer to Sub Team members) I think it was decided that having a deadline could inhibit a productive discussion of an amendment, and that in many cases amendments have been raised during discussion and have resulted in a revised motion that after discussion has passed with the benefit of being amended. Kind regards, Julie On 3/23/16, 4:31 PM, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Hi Julie, > >Apologies to you, Mary and all for any negligence on my part to this. I was >not aware that the SCI had reached an agreement on this topic. I have two >points I would still like to discuss further: > >> On Mar 23, 2016, at 9:41 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >[SNIP] > >> Sub Team A Recommendations >> >> ISSUE 1: Must every motion be seconded? >> AGREED: Every motion must be seconded before a vote. >> ACTION: UPDATE THE PROCESS AND FLOW CHART ACCORDINGLY (in red below and >> attached): >> 5. If a GNSO Council member (other than the proposer) seconds the motion >> the GNSO Council Chair calls for its discussion or a vote. >> >> ISSUE 2: Must the seconder be not just a different Councilor but also a >> Councilor from a different Stakeholder Group/Constituency? >> AGREED: Do not include a requirement that the seconder should be from a >> different stakeholder group or constituency. >> ACTION: NO CHANGE TO THE CURRENT PROCESS. >> >> ISSUE 3: Should there be a deadline for motions to be seconded? >> AGREED: A motion should be seconded prior to discussion. >> ATION: UPDATE THE PROCESS AND FLOW CHART ACCORDINGLY (in red below and >> attached): >> 4. The motion can be discussed up to the Council meeting, but discussion >> and voting on the motion at the Council meeting cannot proceed without a >> second. > >Is there a reason why the SCI believes that motions should not be discussed >during Council meetings if not seconded? Couldn’t we leave it to the >discretion of the Council to make this decision? > >> ISSUE 4: Should there be a time limit /deadline for submitting amendments, >> to allow each SG/C adequate time to discuss them rather than have the >> Council deal with what could potentially be substantively new subject matter >> "on the fly" during a Council meeting? When should a motion be deferred in >> certain circumstances, e.g. "competing" amendments? >> AGREED: Do not require a deadline for submission of amendments prior to, or >> during, discussion of a motion. >> ACTION: NO CHANGE TO CURRENT PROCESS. > >I was actually hoping that we could recommend a deadline for suggesting >amendments to motions. I’d be happy to discuss this on tomorrow’s call, if >time permits. > >Thanks. > >Amr Attachment:
smime.p7s
|