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

Wed Jun 5 23:41:14 UTC 2013

My understanding is that IPC will not agree to a second from each house, but I can take it back to them if you think this represents a material change from the previous criterion #3 in Item 2.  Anne

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 • 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.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 2:43 PM
To: Mike O'Connor; 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

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.)

----------------------
For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to 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