[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task

Tue Jan 8 22:16:32 UTC 2013

Dear Jonathan,

Thank you very much for the background information to Council’s request that
the SCI consider the matter of resubmitting motions.  By way of this email,
I am forwarding it on to the SCI members for their review.

The Committee will begin to address this tomorrow on our call.

Kind regards,

RA

Ronald N. Andruff

President

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 10

  _____  

From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 4:58 AM
To: 'Ron Andruff'
Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff'
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task

Dear Ron,

Certainly.  I believe that the issue can be summarised as follows:

1.       The motion in question related to the provision of temporary
protection for certain Olympic Committee and Red Cross related terms.

2.       The Council voted on the motion and two councillors (from the IPC)
initially abstained from voting.

3.       Due to council procedures, an abstention has the effect of voting
against a motion.

4.       When reminded (by the chair, myself) of the consequence of
abstaining, one councillor asked to change his vote to support the motion
and one councillor retained his abstention.

5.       The votes were then tallied and the matter was closed with the
motion narrowly defeated.  However, had the one remaining IPC councillor not
abstained, the motion would have narrowly passed.

6.       Generally, a councillor who abstains is asked to provide a reason
(by way of explanation) for his/her abstention.

7.       In this case, the reason for the remaining IPC Councillor
abstention was a perceived conflict of interest relating to the content of
the motion.

8.       In fact, Council rules cover for this situation and the abstention
was not strictly necessary.  This position was formally clarified later in
the meeting and the remaining abstaining councillor asked to change his vote
to support he motion .  But, by this time the matter had been formally
closed and some councillors had left the meeting.

The net effect of all of the above was that, had councillors properly
understood the GNSO Operating Procedures, the outcome of the vote would
almost certainly have been different and the motion would have passed.

Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as
they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two
remedies were possible.

A.      Re-open the motion in the same meeting OR

B.      Consider the same motion at a future meeting.

In the event A above was not an option because it was procedurally
questionable and all councillors were no longer present.

Therefore the motion was resubmitted for consideration at the following
meeting.  This was to the concern of some who questioned the resubmission of
a (failed) motion in exactly the same form.

The question (as framed by Jeff) therefore arose i.e.

“Should there be any restrictions on resubmitting motions that previously
appeared before the Council?  If so, what should those restrictions be and
are there any exceptions?

I trust that this is helpful to you and your colleagues on the SCI.

Jeff, please contribute as you see fit.

Best wishes,

Jonathan

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] 
Sent: 07 January 2013 21:41
To: 'Jonathan Robinson'
Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff'
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task

Dear Jonathan,

Regarding my email below, we will be discussing this matter on our Wednesday
call this week.  If you have a chance to provide the background requested so
that I can circulate that info prior that would be great; otherwise you can
send it on later so that we can bring it back on to our agenda for next
call.  Please advise.

Thank you.

Kind regards,

RA

Ronald N. Andruff

President

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 10

  _____  

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 12:20 PM
To: 'Jonathan Robinson'; 'gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org'
Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff'
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task

Dear all,

First, allow me to wish everyone a healthy, happy and abundant 2013!

Jonathan/Jeff: Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the
SCI.  To get all of the SCI members up to speed on what is being discussed,
could you kindly provide us with some background information vis-à-vis what
the specific motion was, and what caused it to come back to the Council in
(as I understand it) virtually the same wording?  That will be helpful for
our discussion.

Jeff: By way of this email, I am asking staff (pursuant to the SCI Charter)
to add your email address to the discussion list until this matter has been
fully explored and a recommendation has been sent back to Council.

Kind regards,

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 Jonathan
Robinson
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 5:50 AM
To: KnobenW at telekom.de; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff'
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task

All,

Jeff Neuman raised a point on the GNSO Council list that the question being
posed to the SCI should be a simpler one focussed on the general principle
not the specific item that caused us to question the principle.  I am in
agreement with this.

Therefore my suggestion is that the SCI focus on the essential question i.e.
under what circumstances is it acceptable / permissible for a motion to be
submitted to the GNSO Council when such a motion is identical to one that
has been previously voted down by the Council.

Jeff put it well and I am support of his formulation of the question as
follows.

The question should simply be "should there be any restrictions on
resubmitting motions that previously appeared before the Council?  If so,
what should those restrictions be and are there any exceptions?

Thank-you.

Jonathan

From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of
KnobenW at telekom.de
Sent: 20 December 2012 18:08
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task

All,

from today's council call the task attached was shifted to the SCI.

Looking forward to meeting you later

Wolf-Ulrich 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130108/c7b104c9/attachment.html>