[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion
Ron Andruff
randruff at rnapartners.com
Thu Jun 6 14:38:52 UTC 2013
Thanks for bringing these points to the discussion, Marika. Much
appreciated.
Kind regards,
RA
Ron Andruff
RNA Partners
<http://www.rnapartners.com> www.rnapartners.com
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 20:27
To: Angie Graves; WUKnoben
Cc: Mike O'Connor; James M. Bladel; Ron Andruff; Avri Doria;
gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a
Motion
Apologies if I'm raising questions / issues that have already been
considered, but the following questions come to my mind:
* 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?
If these questions were already considered, please feel free to ignore.
Best regards,
Marika
From: Angie Graves <angie at webgroup.com <mailto:angie at webgroup.com> >
Date: Thursday 6 June 2013 00:43
To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> >
Cc: Mike O'Connor <mike at haven2.com <mailto:mike at haven2.com> >, "James M.
Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com> >, Ron Andruff
<randruff at rnapartners.com <mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com> >, Avri Doria
<avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org> >, "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> >
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a
Motion
Hi All,
I agree.
Just as a point of clarification, I read "2 total" as 2 REintroductions 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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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 <http://www.rnapartners.com>
-----Original Message-----
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 Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:43
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org <mailto: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 <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?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 <tel:651-647-6109> , FAX: 866-280-2356
<tel:866-280-2356> , WEB: www.haven2.com <http://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/20130606/5389adbd/attachment.html>
More information about the Gnso-improvem-impl-sc
mailing list