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

[WUKnoben]

I agree. Let's start with this plus a second from each house.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Mike O'Connor
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 11:30 PM
To: James M. Bladel
Cc: Ron Andruff ; 'Avri Doria' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a 
Motion

hi all,

i'll join the parade in favor of "not too many bites at the apple", and like 
James' initial bid.

mikey


On Jun 4, 2013, at 4:26 PM, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com> wrote:

>
> Ron and Committee Members:
>
> Off the cuff, I think there are two approaches to Ron's second question:
>
> (1)  How many times in a given period can a motion be reintroduced
>
> And/or
>
> (2)  How much time must elapse before a failed motion can be reintroduced?
>
> The legal, government, commercial, non-profit and academic worlds probably
> have a jillion examples for each.  So any decision this group reaches will
> be, by some measure, arbitrary.  :)
>
> Therefore, I will start the bidding at:  (1) twice, total and (2) 12
> calendar months.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> J.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 6/4/13 16:18, "Ron Andruff" <randruff at rnapartners.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Agree with Avri re 1-2; but would like a clarification as to why this
>> would
>> need to be on the 'consent' agenda.  Can one of the lawyers in our midst
>> clarify that for us?
>>
>> Regarding what James noted as avoiding a 'zombie motion' (as in one that
>> will never die) I agree that it would make sense to have a limit on how
>> many
>> times a motion can be resubmitted.
>>
>> How many times does the Committee think would be appropriate?
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> RA
>>
>> Ron Andruff
>> RNA Partners
>> www.rnapartners.com
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:43
>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a
>> Motion
>> Importance: High
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I support 1-3.  As I understand it one would need to meet all 3
>> conditions,
>> otherwise there would be no stopping it being on every agenda.
>>
>> Also I thought some wanted to add a rate throttling mechanism or a 
>> maximum
>> count.
>>
>> I agree 4 is superfluous since any council member can ask for something 
>> to
>> be taken off the consent agenda, not that i expect a resubmitted motion
>> would ever make the consent agenda.
>>
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 4 Jun 2013, at 16:31, Julie Hedlund wrote:
>>
>>> Dear SCI members,
>>>
>>> As discussed on today's call, we will continue discussion on the list on
>> re-submission of a motion.  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).
>>>
>>> Please send your comments to the list.  This also will be on the agenda
>>> at
>> our next meeting.
>>>
>>> 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>
>>> Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:42 PM
>>> To: Ron Andruff <randruff at rnapartners.com>, James Bladel
>> <jbladel at godaddy.com>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org"
>> <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
>>> Cc: 'Jennifer Standiford' <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] On Behalf Of James M.
>> Bladel?Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:51 PM?To:
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
>


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: 
OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)