[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Notes from yesterday's SCI meeting

Fri Apr 27 13:46:09 UTC 2012

Dear All:  I am interested to be part of discussion on items: c Deferral ,and e Voting proxy.

Some personal thoughts about point c.

Deferral motions, is a good mechanism to analize and study better a determinated proposal before to discuss and vote, But there are many other options to ask a motion deferral. I dont think  we must study each one of this options or possibilities.
I believe a rapid and efective rule, could be, determine how many times it can be possible to ask or raise a Deferral motion and how many days is possible to defer the discussion of item related.
Particularly I dont think can be possible to eliminate the motions of deferral and less to analize each one of the possibilities of motions of deferral  presented like particular cases. 
My two cents in advance of the discussion in our next call

Carlos Dionisio Aguirre
NCA GNSO Council - ICANN
former ALAC member by LACRALO
Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios
Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -
*54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423
http://ar.ageiadensi.org 

From: randruff at rnapartners.com
To: marika.konings at icann.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Notes from yesterday's SCI meeting
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 18:52:18 -0400

Dear Marika, 

Please put myself and our new BC alternate,
Angie Graves, down for items c. Deferral of Motions and d. Voting Threshold
rules for Delaying a PDP. 

We also support Staff recommendation:  (Note – Staff would be happy to prepare a first draft of such a
survey that might serve as a basis for further work / discussion) on item a. WG Survey - Survey on the experiences with WG Guidelines needs to be
added to list of work items. 

Thank you,

RA

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

From:
owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings

Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 3:31
AM

To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org

Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc]
Notes from yesterday's SCI meeting

Dear All,

Following yesterday's
SCI meeting, please find below the different work items and related notes. As
discussed, members of the SCI are encouraged to indicate which topics they
would be interested in working on so that on the next call it can be decided
how to move forward on these different items. Attached you'll find the
different documents that were used as part of the discussion.

With best regards,

Marika

WORK ITEMS SCI

a. WG Survey 

 Survey
     on the experiences with WG Guidelines needs to be added to list of work
     items
 (Note – Staff would be happy
     to prepare a first draft of such a survey that might serve as a basis for
     further work / discussion)

b.
Consent Agenda

 Include
     procedure sent by J. Scott (see
     http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/msg00146.html) into the
     comparison table to facilitate comparison by SCI (Action item: Marika)

c.
Deferral of Motions

 Deferral
     of motions: currently unwritten rule which allows deferral upon request
     from SG/C, which is always allowed. Normally only one time deferral only,
     although there have been exceptions in the past. Council has requested SCI
     whether a formal procedure is needed / preferred. PDP rules allow
     individual member of Council to request deferral on PDP related vote
     (once). Individual vs. SG/C? What is the role of 'socializing' motions
     prior to formally introducing them - does that reduce the need for
     deferrals?

d. Voting Threshold rules
for Delaying a PDP

 Threshold
     rules needed for delaying a PDP - overview of current rules and recent
     situation on delaying 'thick' Whois PDP.

e.
Proxy Voting Procedure

 At the
     last GNSO Council meeting a proxy was requested but not in the correct
     way. Do rules need to be adapted to accomodate situations where no formal
     proxy can be given? Overview of current proxy voting rules (section 4.6 of
     Operating Procedures) provided. Current rules don't provide for last
     minute situations, assumes a certain time delay between knowing that
     Council member cannot attend Council meeting and giving proxy. Do youneed
     to create rules for every possible exception? Several members of the SCI
     noted that they do not think modifications need to be made to the current
     rules.

d.
Update of GNSO Council Voting Results Table

 As a
     result of the adoption of the new PDP and related update of the voting
     thresholds in the ICANN Bylaws, the voting results table has been updated.
     SCI requested to review the table, which has been updated to be consistent
     with the changes as a result of the new PDP, so it can be included in the
     GNSO Operating Procedures.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120427/c660a0c7/attachment.html>