Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Updated outstanding issues document + action items
On rereading this, it may be taken the "requesting a re-vote" could be refused by the GNSO. Changing the end of the sentence to "... for such a re-vote which cannot be refused by the GNSO Council." fixes it, but perhaps there is a more elegant way of phrasing it. Alan At 03/02/2011 02:14 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: At 03/02/2011 11:42 AM, Marika Konings wrote:* Recommendation # 18 - There was support for modifying the recommendation so that it would highlight that dialogue between GNSO Council members and the requesting AC would be adesirable option to pursue following a vote against the initiation of a PDPeither to better understand the reasons for declining a PDP and/or determining whether there would be options to modify the request so that it would receive support. Alan agreed to draft language for consideration by the WT.Draft text for Recommendation 18The PDP-WT recommends that if the GNSO votes to not initiate a PDP following an Issues Report requested by an AC, the AC or its representatives should have the right to a meeting with representatives of the GNSO, and in particular, those voting against the PDP, to discuss the rationale for the rejection and why the AC feels that reconsideration is appropriate. Following this meeting, the AC may submit a statement to the GNSO Council requesting a re-vote and giving it's rationale for such re-vote. This process may be followed just once for any given Issues Report.
|