[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Actions re: Current Practice in Relation to Motions
Dear SCI members, Please see as a reminder the attached proposed draft text. Since we did not have time to discuss this item at our meeting on 24 March, we will include it on the agenda for the meeting on 07 April. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: <owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 3:41 PM To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Actions re: Current Practice in Relation to Motions Dear SCI Members, Per the action item below from the SCI meeting on 05 March relating to the Sub Team A report on Current Practice in Relation to Motions, Mary and I have drafted language for your consideration for a revised version of the GNSO Operating Procedures. The language is contained in a new section 3.3.3 Submitting, Seconding, and Amending Motions in the attached document. The language is based on the documentation of the current procedure, as well as the changes to current procedure, recommended by Sub Team A and agreed to by the SCI. The recommendations are provided below for reference. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director 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. 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. From: <owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Monday, March 7, 2016 at 10:46 AM To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Actions: SCI Meeting 05 March 2016 Dear SCI members, Please see below the actions captured from the SCI meeting held at ICANN 55 in Marrakech on Saturday, 05 March. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. For your reference, the Sub Team A and B Reports are attached along with the related materials. With respect to the next Sub Team B meeting, staff will send a Doodle Poll. In addition, for the next SCI call these have been held on Thursdays at 1800 UTC. Staff will separately ask for RSVPs for a possible SCI call on Thursday, 24 March. For these two meetings we are skipping the week immediately following the ICANN 55 meeting (13-19 March) as is our usual practice. Kind regards, Julie Actions: SCI Meeting 05 March 2016 1. Sub Team A: Report to the SCI on Current Practice in Relation to Motions Action Item: Staff will draft language for the SCI to consider to incorporate the informal procedures into the GNSO Operating Procedures. 2. Sub Team B: Report to the SCI on Chair-Vice Chair Elections Issue 2: Is there a gap to be addressed when the Vice Chairs' terms end at the same time as that of the Chair, and no Chair is conclusively elected by that time? >From the Report to the SCI: Suggested new language for the GNSO Operating >Procedures: “In the case where both Vice-Chairs’ terms on the Council end at >the same time as the Chair, and no Chair is conclusively elected, this >procedure would apply: Each House should designate a new or continuing >councilor, including the voting and non-voting NCAs, to temporarily fill the >role of Vice Chair on an interim basis, not as an elected Vice Chair. These >individuals will co-chair the Chair election and once the election is >completed their service in those roles would end. Candidates for Chair would >not be eligible to serve as designated Interim Vice Chairs, to avoid potential >conflicts of interest." Action Item: Sub Team B will continue discussion on this issue. Consider whether there should be steps for each possibilty that could ensure a predictable outcome. Issue 4: Should the timetable (or a modality for setting one) for the GNSO chair election be specified in the Operating Procedures? Action Item: Concerning the Election Timeline — It was noted that the timeline will be very important if incoming councilors can be considered for Chair elections. The request is for the representatives from the two Houses in the SCI to review the timeline and bring their comments back to the SCI. New issue 5: If there is no Chair elected is it the Vice Chairs who run the meetings and calls the votes? Action Item: Sub Team B will consider this issue. Attachment:
GNSO Operating Procedures Proposed Revision Relating to Motions & Amendments 23 March 2016.docx Attachment:
smime.p7s |