Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Actions re: Current Practice in Relation to Motions

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Julie,

Thanks for adding some context to the rationale behind the current draft 
language. That’s really helpful. And I believe that you are correct; that staff 
prepping draft language was an action item. If I recall correctly, this was one 
of the action items we agreed to close to the end of the SCI meeting in 
Marrakech. Others can correct me if I am mistaken.

Also…, going over the transcripts of the Saturday morning SCI meeting in 
Marrakech, I realised that this was discussed as a first agenda item, which I 
missed because I was tardy in getting to the meeting on time. My fault really. 
:)

Thanks again.

Amr

> On Mar 24, 2016, at 12:07 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 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