[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FW: Adobe Connect - Note Pod Content from Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation

[Marika Konings]

Dear All,

Please find below the notes from this week's SCI meeting. With regard to the request to obtain further information on the process the Board uses for deferrals, we can report that there is currently no formal procedure used by the Board. In practice, the Board can and does defer action on items at the discretion of the Board and Chair, but it doesn't follow a formal procedure.

Please note that the next meeting is scheduled F2F in Prague on Sunday 24 June from 8.00 – 9.00 local time in conference room Congress III.

With best regards,

Marika

From: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>
Reply-To: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>
Subject: Adobe Connect - Note Pod Content from Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation


SCI Meeting Agenda - 18 June 2012

1. Roll call

2. Statement of Interests

3. Approval of the agenda

4. Background information (and suggested solutions) on

        - Deferral of Motions

        - Proxy Voting Procedure

        - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP

5. Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda

6. AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague?

Notes:

- Deferral of Motions: Should this remain an informal practice or should it become a formal procedure (original question of the GNSO Council)? Some expressed support for formalizing this procedure, but some also suggested it could continue as an informal practice, with the option to review in a certain amount of time. Possible requirements if policy is formalized: deferral only for maximum one meeting (although exceptions may have to possible?) /

NCA should also be able to defer motions (not only SG/C) / ony allow deferral if information is incomplete (and until information is complete) / One deferral per SG or C?.

If SCI response is 'yes' it should be a formal process, it should also include a recommendation for how this process should look for GNSO Council consideration. Staff to check what process, if any, the Board uses for deferral of motions. Issue was also discussed in earlier discussions of PPSC - aren't same arguments still valid for keeping it an informal process? Instead of formal process, SCI could also consider issuing 'guidance'.

No decision yet on formal or informal process. Wolf to report back to the GNSO Council on the status of discussions in the update in Prague - might result in further guidance. Consider taking a poll amongst membership - but question would need to be clear. Wolf to circulate proposed language to the list re. update.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120620/080373fb/attachment.html>