<div dir="ltr">Hi All,<div><br></div><div>I agree.<br></div><div><br></div><div style>Just as a point of clarification, I read "2 total" as 2 <u>RE</u>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.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style><br></div><div style>Angie</div><div style><br></div><div style>Angie Graves</div><div style>WEB Group, Inc.</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 5:43 PM, WUKnoben <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de" target="_blank">wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
I agree. Let's start with this plus a second from each house.<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
<br>
Wolf-Ulrich<br>
<br>
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Mike O'Connor<br>
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 11:30 PM<br>
To: James M. Bladel<br>
Cc: Ron Andruff ; 'Avri Doria' ; <a href="mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.<u></u>org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion<br>
<br>
hi all,<br>
<br>
i'll join the parade in favor of "not too many bites at the apple", and like James' initial bid.<br>
<br>
mikey<br>
<br>
<br>
On Jun 4, 2013, at 4:26 PM, "James M. Bladel" <<a href="mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com" target="_blank">jbladel@godaddy.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Ron and Committee Members:<br>
<br>
Off the cuff, I think there are two approaches to Ron's second question:<br>
<br>
(1) How many times in a given period can a motion be reintroduced<br>
<br>
And/or<br>
<br>
(2) How much time must elapse before a failed motion can be reintroduced?<br>
<br>
The legal, government, commercial, non-profit and academic worlds probably<br>
have a jillion examples for each. So any decision this group reaches will<br>
be, by some measure, arbitrary. :)<br>
<br>
Therefore, I will start the bidding at: (1) twice, total and (2) 12<br>
calendar months.<br>
<br>
Thoughts?<br>
<br>
J.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 6/4/13 16:18, "Ron Andruff" <<a href="mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com" target="_blank">randruff@rnapartners.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Agree with Avri re 1-2; but would like a clarification as to why this<br>
would<br>
need to be on the 'consent' agenda. Can one of the lawyers in our midst<br>
clarify that for us?<br>
<br>
Regarding what James noted as avoiding a 'zombie motion' (as in one that<br>
will never die) I agree that it would make sense to have a limit on how<br>
many<br>
times a motion can be resubmitted.<br>
<br>
How many times does the Committee think would be appropriate?<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
<br>
RA<br>
<br>
Ron Andruff<br>
RNA Partners<br>
<a href="http://www.rnapartners.com" target="_blank">www.rnapartners.com</a><br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" target="_blank">owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@<u></u>icann.org</a><br>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" target="_blank">owner-gnso-improvem-<u></u>impl-sc@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria<br>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:43<br>
To: <a href="mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.<u></u>org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a<br>
Motion<br>
Importance: High<br>
<br>
<br>
Hi,<br>
<br>
I support 1-3. As I understand it one would need to meet all 3<br>
conditions,<br>
otherwise there would be no stopping it being on every agenda.<br>
<br>
Also I thought some wanted to add a rate throttling mechanism or a maximum<br>
count.<br>
<br>
I agree 4 is superfluous since any council member can ask for something to<br>
be taken off the consent agenda, not that i expect a resubmitted motion<br>
would ever make the consent agenda.<br>
<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
On 4 Jun 2013, at 16:31, Julie Hedlund wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Dear SCI members,<br>
<br>
As discussed on today's call, we will continue discussion on the list on<br>
</blockquote>
re-submission of a motion. There was agreement on option 2 (see below),<br>
but<br>
not on which criteria to include (see comments from Anne and James in<br>
their<br>
emails below).<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Please send your comments to the list. This also will be on the agenda<br>
at<br>
</blockquote>
our next meeting.<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Julie<br>
<br>
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director<br>
<br>
<br>
Procedure for Re-Submission of a Motion:<br>
<br>
Option 2 -- Set one or more high-level criteria (in this order):<br>
<br>
1) Provide a reasoning to justify the resubmission of a motion.<br>
Complete<br>
</blockquote>
no later than the deadline for submitting a motion -- 8 days prior to<br>
the<br>
next GNSO Council meeting.<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
2) Publish the text of the re-submitted motion. Complete no later than<br>
</blockquote>
the deadline for submitting a motion -- 8 days prior to the next GNSO<br>
Council meeting.<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
3) Require a seconder of the motion from each house as a prerequisite<br>
for<br>
</blockquote>
placing the re-submission of the motion on the consent agenda.<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
4) Allow a councilor to ask for the re-submission of the motion to be<br>
</blockquote>
taken off the consent agenda and to request a Council vote on whether to<br>
accept the re-submission.<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
------------------------------<u></u>------------------------------<u></u>---<br>
From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <<a href="mailto:AAikman@lrlaw.com" target="_blank">AAikman@lrlaw.com</a>><br>
Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:42 PM<br>
To: Ron Andruff <<a href="mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com" target="_blank">randruff@rnapartners.com</a>>, James Bladel<br>
</blockquote>
<<a href="mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com" target="_blank">jbladel@godaddy.com</a>>, "<a href="mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.<u></u>org</a>"<br>
<<a href="mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.<u></u>org</a>><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Cc: 'Jennifer Standiford' <<a href="mailto:JStandiford@web.com" target="_blank">JStandiford@web.com</a>><br>
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Action item from SCI<br>
</blockquote>
Meeting 06 March Re-Submitting a Motion<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Ron,<br>
I had wanted to report to SCI that in its full meeting in Beijing, the<br>
IPC<br>
</blockquote>
agreed to the first two criteria listed in Item 2 of the "one or more high<br>
level criteria" to be set for resubmitting a motion.<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Anne<br>
------------------------------<u></u>------------------------------<u></u>---------<br>
From: <a href="mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" target="_blank">owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@<u></u>icann.org</a><br>
</blockquote>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" target="_blank">owner-gnso-improvem-<u></u>impl-sc@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of James M.<br>
Bladel?Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:51 PM?To:<br>
<a href="http://gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org?Cc" target="_blank">gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.<u></u>org?Cc</a>: Jennifer Standiford?Subject: Re:<br>
[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Action item from SCI Meeting 06 March<br>
-- Re-Submitting a Motion?Importance: High<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Hello SCI Team:<br>
<br>
Last week, Jennifer and I were able to consult with the Registrar<br>
</blockquote>
Stakeholder Group (RrSG) on this issue. We can report that RrSG members<br>
strongly favor Option #2.<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Additionally, Registrars agree with the proposed criteria listed,<br>
-except-<br>
</blockquote>
for item #2.4, which they note could be redundant if Items #2.1-#2.3 are<br>
followed. Finally, RrSG members would like to see the inclusion of some<br>
limitations (per year or minimum time frame) on how frequently a motion<br>
may<br>
be re-introduced.<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
We look forward to further discussions on our next call.<br>
<br>
Thanks--<br>
<br>
J.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
PHONE: <a href="tel:651-647-6109" value="+16516476109" target="_blank">651-647-6109</a>, FAX: <a href="tel:866-280-2356" value="+18662802356" target="_blank">866-280-2356</a>, WEB: <a href="http://www.haven2.com" target="_blank">www.haven2.com</a>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>