[gnso-policyimpl-wg] RE: Updated public comment review tool and proposed "hierarchy" language
Thanks Mary. All - Please provide any edits you have to Mary's suggested wording below before Wednesday of next week. Earlier the better so that others can comment. Chuck From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 7:50 PM To: gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Updated public comment review tool and proposed "hierarchy" language Dear WG members, Please find attached the Public Comment Review Tool, updated to reflect the discussion and agreement reached on the WG call of Wednesday 22 April. In addition, here is some proposed language for your consideration, in respect of the question of how to deal with the situation where competing requests or motions are filed that relate to the same issue: "Where two or more requests (e.g. in the form of motions) are received by the GNSO Council that propose different processes for addressing the same issue, the GNSO Council as the manager of the overall policy development process must have the flexibility to determine the most appropriate course of action. The WG recommends that, in determining the most appropriate course of action, the GNSO Council take into account all of the following: (1) the scope of each process, as expressly delineated in the ICANN Bylaws and the relevant portions of the GNSO Operating Procedures (including the PDP, GGP and EPDP Manuals, as applicable); (2) the information contained in the relevant motion, form or scoping document requesting the initiation of each process; and (3) any other materials and information the Council deems relevant, such as the original Board, SO or AC request to the GNSO (if applicable). The WG believes that according the Council maximum flexibility means that there should not be a fixed sequence of precedence or voting in respect of these competing requests, i.e. the Council should not approach the matter according to when a motion was filed, the voting threshold required to initiate the process in question, or the order in which it appears on a meeting agenda. The WG therefore recommends that in such cases the Council, guided by Council leadership, should engage in a substantive discussion of all the options (including all the factors and materials noted above) prior to taking a vote on any of them. However, the final outcome of such discussion and voting should be that only one motion carries (if at all)." We look forward to continuing discussion on this list and on our next call. BTW I ought to have noted previously that the public comment forum for our Initial Report has now been officially closed, and a Report of Public Comments published: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/policy-implementation-2015-01-19-en (sorry for that oversight on my part!). Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx Attachment:
smime.p7s
|