[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposal for Deferral of Motions

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Fri Aug 17 16:00:54 UTC 2012


While I am fine with the status quo - and prefer guidelines instead of more rules,  I agree with most of the RySG reasoning.

In fact there had been discussion in this group of formulations that included the possibility of multiple deferrals for good reasons - such as the issue is not ready yet because further work needs to be done on finishing reports and comment periods.  I tend to not support voting on whether to vote.

I also find rules about dictating where something should be on the agenda to be way overkill.

That is why I do not support option 2.  


On 17 Aug 2012, at 14:53, Ray Fassett wrote:

> To Avri's question, there has been some discussion on this within the RySG
> which I bring forth below for our discussion:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> It is unlikely that a decision will be any easier to make a year from now
> and dealing with the issue now would probably be more efficient in terms of
> resource usage because of the recent work of the SC.  Therefore, [we] don't
> like option 1.  Option 1 might actually reduce the number of deferral
> requests during the year it's under review, but that doesn't solve the
> potential for abuse later on.
> But [we] don't like option 2 either...too rigid...okay setting a limit of
> one deferral as long as there is an exception procedure; for example, one
> deferral request shall be automatically allowed unless a simple majority of
> Councilors from both houses overrule it and no additional deferrals shall be
> allowed except by a simple majority vote of both houses.  We can count on
> there being special circumstances where exceptions are appropriate so it is
> necessary to allow for them and to do so in a way that requires reasonable
> Council support.
> Why it is necessary to make the deferred item first on the next agenda?  It
> makes sense to put the item early in the agenda so as to minimize the chance
> of it not being handled because of an agenda that cannot be completed.
> There are always administrative items that need to be handled first.  Also,
> sometimes certain Councilors, Staff or guests have to join the call late or
> leave the call early, so there needs to be some flexibility to manage such
> situations...suggest language like this: "A deferred item should be put as
> early in the next agenda as possible with goals to maximize Councilor and
> other key player participation and to minimize the chances of there not
> being enough time to act on the item."
> ------------------------------------------------------
> I hope to be able to discuss these points on the list or next
> teleconference.
> Ray
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 3:02 AM
> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposal for Deferral of Motions 
> Thought I had sent this a while ago, but sent it from an unsubscribed
> address.
> --- against option 2  ---
> Can live with status quo
> But I do not understand why it was narrowed down to just these two
> alternatives when so much more was discussed.
> avri

More information about the Gnso-improvem-impl-sc mailing list