[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Fri Mar 16 06:43:38 UTC 2012


Sounds like a good task for the group.

We also need to include as a base the new PDP requirements that include a individual councilor based right of deferral on PDP votes.  Or perhaps we even need to discuss if this is a good reason given the requirements these days for posting of motions and reports weeks in advance of any meeting.  The deferral made/makes a lot of sense when the information is still raw, or perhaps incomplete. But whether it makes sense in those cases where a SG/C has had the information in a stable format for weeks, is indeed debatable - in the days when the practice started, often a report was made available a few days before a vote.

Should be an interesting discussion.  I am glad the council called for the intial research.


On 15 Mar 2012, at 17:58, <KnobenW at telekom.de> <KnobenW at telekom.de> wrote:

> All,
> In addition to the tasks we took at our meeting the SCI is asked by the GNSO council to look at the issue of GNSO Council deferral requests for motions.
> As we agreed to reconvene after mid of April it would be helpful to prepare a little in specifying the problem in more detail. Looking into how in the past the council handled deferrals would be useful.
> I'd therefore like to ask Marika whether staff would take over this survey.
> From my point of view the following criteria could apply for this survey:
> - starting with council meetings under the new house structure
> - type, name and date of motion deferred
> - deferral requested by which SG/constituency
> - rationale given for the request
> - repeated request for deferral if applicable?
> Please add any criteria which may be useful.
> Best regards
> Wolf-Ulrich

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