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

Thu Jun 6 18:05:25 UTC 2013

Anne,

This is the list of members in the sub-group: Anne Aikman-Scalese, Avri
Doria, Thomas Rickert and Mary Wong.

Thanks,
Julie

On 6/6/13 1:59 PM, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrlaw.com> wrote:

>
>Marika makes some very good points about potential conflicts related to
>other motion provisions.  We may need to go back to the subgroup to study
>this.  The subgroup was Mary, Thomas, me and anyone else?  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 Avri Doria
>Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 8:21 AM
>To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a
>Motion
>
>
>
>On 5 Jun 2013, at 20:27, Marika Konings wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
>Is an amended motion the same motion.  I think it needs to be the very
>same motion or derivatives based on amendments done in meetings.
>
>A re-crafted motion with new information that was not added as amendment,
>seems to me to be a new motion, no mater how similar.
>
>Of course, that opens up the possibility that if people were not being
>collegial, purely hypothetically, a similar motion could be submitted
>each month ad infinitum.  IS there ay provision for rejection of a motion
>without voting it down.
>
>>       € 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?
>
>As I remember this courtesy is also extend in some form to ACs who have
>requested a issues report.  Do I remember correctly (I know, I could
>check).
>
>Perhaps this is the rule that should just be carried forward to all
>motions.
>
>>       € 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?
>
>I agree  Until some of the recent statements, I have thought of this a
>much more of a proximity problem.  I.e.  in the same meeting, at the next
>meeting or 2 at the latest..
>
>> If these questions were already considered, please feel free to ignore.
>
>I do not think we even got close to any of these issues.
>thanks
>
>as for a repeat clause.  How about once and in extraordinary
>circumstances (at the leadership's, C+VC, discretion) twice.
>
>avri
>
>
>
>
>
>----------------------
>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
>
-------------- 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/20130606/46745b51/smime.p7s>