[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re-Submitting a Motion - Revision 20 February

Thu Feb 21 21:07:09 UTC 2013

I thought we would be presenting the possibility of two out of the three higher level "conjunctive" criteria to our constituencies.  I don't see all three together flying at IPC.

[cid:144160621 at 21022013-33E4]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700
One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725
AAikman at LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman at LRLaw.com> • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman>
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.

________________________________
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 4:46 PM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Julie Hedlund
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re-Submitting a Motion - Revision 20 February

Thanks for the quick turnaround, Julie!

It looks fine to me - one question I had for everyone, in light of some of the discussion earlier today, is whether we ought to include a short explanatory note after setting out the options. Basically, I had in mind something like this:

Notes:

- 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 are conjunctive criteria, i.e. all three steps have to be completed.

- 2.3 and 2.4 relate only to how the resubmitted motion is placed back on the Council's agenda, i.e. they take place prior to the Council's actually discussing (and voting on) the actual substance of the resubmitted motion, and allow for the possibility of there being a vote on whether to accept the resubmission itself in the first place.

Cheers

Mary

Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584

>>>

From:

Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>

To:

"gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>

Date:

2/20/2013 6:15 PM

Subject:

[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re-Submitting a Motion - Revision 20 February

Dear SCI members,

Based on our discussion today, please see below revised options.  Please let me know if you have any changes.  Once the SCI agrees to the options for consideration, the action is for members to circulate them to their Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups.  These also are posted to the wiki.

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Possible Options for Addressing the Re-Submission of a Motion:

1.  Leave up to discretion of the Chair

2.  Set one or more high-level criteria (in this order):

1)  Provide a reasoning to justify the resubmission of a motion. Complete no later than the deadline for submitting a motion --  8 days prior to  the next GNSO Council meeting.

2)  Publish the text of the re-submitted motion. Complete no later than the deadline for submitting a motion --  8 days prior to  the next GNSO Council meeting.

3)  Require a seconder of the motion from each house as a prerequisite for placing the re-submission of the motion on the consent agenda.

4)  Allow a councilor to ask for the re-submission of the motion to be taken off the consent agenda and to request a Council vote on whether to accept the re-submission.

________________________________

For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>.

Phoenix (602)262-5311           Reno (775)823-2900
Tucson (520)622-2090            Albuquerque (505)764-5400
Las Vegas (702)949-8200         Silicon Valley (650)391-1380

  This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.

  In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130221/a779d02f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3225 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130221/a779d02f/image001.gif>