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,

As I said, I was sure I was likely wrong in this subjective assessment.

>> And my view on the speed with which the second was sought is subjective and 
>> likely wrong.

So I thank you for confirming that.

You are right, there was a week.  In that week I think people assumed one of 
the council members who were also WG members, perhaps even the liaison, would 
do the seconding, so it was not given much thought.  This was probably a 
mistake. We should have probably realized that the council members needed to be 
asked to do it.

It was only on realization at that moment in the meeting that this had not been 
seconded by someone from the group that some began to scramble and then the 
time in the meeting  seemed too short.

And I grant you perhaps they should have realized days before especially when 
reminded that the motion had not been second yet.  Did such a reminder go out? 

a.



On 27 Aug 2010, at 01:44, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

> 
> Avri,
> 
> I think a lot of what you are saying here is a mischaracterization at best. I 
> won't go into detail as Mikey has asked (rightly so in my opinion) that we do 
> not stay on this off-topic issue on this list.
> 
> But just as an example, I really do not see what your basis for saying that 
> the interval for seconding the motion this time was short. You are making it 
> sound like the motion was very last minute, which is simply not true. As you 
> know very well, there are rules for submitting a motion, one of which is that 
> it be done 8 days in advance of the Council meeting. That rule is there just 
> so people do have time to consider any motions and second them if they want.
> 
> And this motion was made in time by the Council Chair Chuck Gomes. So what 
> you are implying simply doesn't ring true to me.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Le 27 août 2010 à 00:54, Avri Doria a écrit :
> 
>> 
>> 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.)
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>