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

[Angie Graves]

Hi All,

I agree.

Just as a point of clarification, I read "2 total" as 2 *RE*introductions
of a failed motion, meaning that all motions get a total of 3 opportunities
to be considered, with all three occurring within a 12-month period.


Angie

Angie Graves
WEB Group, Inc.



On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 5:43 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>wrote:

>
> 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<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@**icann.org<owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-**impl-sc at icann.org<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 <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>
>>> "
>>> <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@**icann.org<owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
>>>>
>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-**impl-sc at icann.org<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<http://gnso-improvem-impl-sc@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.)
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130605/3815b11a/attachment.html>