Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] OFF TOPIC -- Further update -- Council motion came up again right at the end of the meeting

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I am fairly certain the motion will be reintroduced.  And seconded this time.  
Last time the interval for seconding was short and some council members did not 
have time to figure out which one of them was going to do it before the window 
closed.  I also found the strict seconding procedure, when there is no such 
written procedure, not allowing a delayed second during the same meeting a bit 
strange.

As for it being unprecedented, I beg to differ.  Status and other reports have 
been used in the past and there is nothing in the procedure of this or any 
other process I have ever heard of to prohibit them.  Of course they are not 
binding, just indicative.  The topics just haven't been as controversial.  I 
see it as an abrogation of the Council managerial duties to not send an interim 
report on something it is working on, when an important board retreat is 
probably going to discuss that issue.  And since the WG has provided such a 
report to the council, there is no question of it needing to write one.  Sure 
the Board can rely on its Staff aids or can go rooting around to find the 
report itself - I am sure some have already.  But it is the responsibility of 
the GNSO Council, in my mind, to give a report, even if it is an interim one, 
so that the board knows which one is the one.  

To go further, several people on the Council have been complaining that the WGs 
take too long and are always presupposing extensions.  This group has already 
gone beyond its date for a final report.  And as was (sort of) argued in 
another venue, whether a report is called preliminary or not, if it is 
delivered at the end of a schedule it is a report, so why call it preliminary.  
Sure we may get more extensions, but we are overdue with our report as it is.  
As for PDP rules, this entire group is so far outside the rules to quote them 
is silly at best.  And since we would only be making a recommendation to the 
Board, if we were ever able to reach consensus, not a binding policy decision, 
do those rules really apply?

In any case, it will also be a good indicator for the world to see who is 
willing to report and who isn't.  So a vote works either way.

Of course I cannot predict the vote. 

And my view on the speed with which the second was sought is subjective and 
likely wrong. I wasn't really there.  Though Roberts rules of order, which the 
council never followed or else there would be no such thing as a friendly 
amendment, does allow for a chair to declare a motion dead if he does not 
receive second in time.  But did he explicitly declare it dead?  I do not think 
he did until after the delayed second.  It also allows a chair to assume a 
second without one being explicitly said, and this second would hold unless 
there was a point of order.   But of course, the Council does not follow 
Roberts Rules.

a.

On 26 Aug 2010, at 18:15, Mike O'Connor wrote:

> 
> hi all,
> 
> right at the end of the Council meeting, our motion was brought up for 
> reconsideration.  here's where it ended up...
> 
> -- the motion was not reconsidered at today's meeting because it had already 
> failed for lack of a second (my audio feed dropped in the middle of this part 
> of the discussion)
> 
> -- the option exists for it to be re-introduced at the next Council meeting
> 
> this doesn't mean that the Board won't see our Interim Report, it just means 
> that as of right now it won't be formally transmitted by the Council 
> (rationale: it's an Interim Report and doesn't need to be transmitted, the 
> Board already has access to it).  the Council debate was pretty much along 
> the lines of the conversation we had on the list.  
> 
> i'm putting the "OFF TOPIC" label on, so's to hopefully head off a restart of 
> the debate.  i just wanted to keep you updated.
> 
> mikey
> 
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone         651-647-6109  
> fax           866-280-2356  
> web   http://www.haven2.com
> handle        OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, 
> Google, etc.)
> 
>