[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion

Tue Jul 2 12:13:38 UTC 2013

Dear SCI members,

Please also consider the questions raised on the list by Marika concerning
this issue:
* Who makes a determination whether it considers a re-submission of a motion
or whether it is considers a new motion? Does it have to be identical to be
considered a re-submission? If a few words are added or whereas clauses are
introduced, does that make it a new motion?
* The PDP Manual foresees that 'In the event that the GNSO Council does not
approve the initiation of the PDP, not including the possible suspension of
further consideration of the Final Issue Report as described above, any
Councillor may appeal the denial, and request that the GNSO Council hold a
renewed vote on the initiation of the PDP at the next subsequent GNSO
Council meeting'. There are no further requirements attached to this
'renewed vote' - would this be considered an exception or would it need to
be brought in line with the new requirements if/when approved?
* A 12 month period appears to be a long time to be able to reconsider a
motion  for example, there may be new information brought forward that may
result in a change of opinion / vote of a SG/C that may warrant
reconsideration of a motion or a certain urgency may require quicker
reconsideration. Should a shorter time frame be considered, or at a minimum
the possibility of an exception to this timeframe at the discretion of the
Chair?
Best regards,
Julie

From:  Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
Date:  Monday, July 1, 2013 1:51 PM
To:  "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
Subject:  [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion

Dear SCI members,

As discussed on our 04 June call, we will continue discussion on
re-submission of a motion at our meeting tomorrow, 02 July.  There was
agreement on option 2 (see below), but not on which criteria to include (see
comments from Anne and James in their emails below).

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Procedure for Re-Submission of a Motion:

Option 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman at lrlaw.com <mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com> >
Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:42 PM
To: Ron Andruff <randruff at rnapartners.com <mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com>
>, James Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com> >,
"gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org> "
<gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org> >
Cc: 'Jennifer Standiford' <JStandiford at web.com <mailto:JStandiford at web.com>
>
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Action item from SCI
Meeting 06 March Re-Submitting a Motion

Ron,
I had wanted to report to SCI that in its full meeting in Beijing, the IPC
agreed to the first two criteria listed in Item 2 of the "one or more high
level criteria" to be set for resubmitting a motion.

Anne
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org> ] On Behalf Of James M.
Bladel?Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:51 PM?To:
gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
?Cc: Jennifer Standiford?Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re:
Action item from SCI Meeting 06 March -- Re-Submitting a Motion?Importance:
High

Hello SCI Team:

Last week, Jennifer and I were able to consult with the Registrar
Stakeholder Group (RrSG) on this issue.  We can report that RrSG members
strongly favor Option #2.

Additionally, Registrars agree with the proposed criteria listed, -except-
for item #2.4, which they note could be redundant if Items #2.1-#2.3 are
followed.  Finally, RrSG members would like to see the inclusion of some
limitations (per year or minimum time frame) on how frequently a motion may
be re-introduced.

We look forward to further discussions on our next call.

Thanks--

J.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130702/fb5f5bf6/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5041 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130702/fb5f5bf6/smime.p7s>