<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">Dear All,</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><font face="Calibri,sans-serif" style="font-size: 14px;">Following on from the meeting today, please find hereunder the message that was sent by the SCI on 12 December 2012 to the GNSO Council
concerning the issue of deferrals. Do note that in relation to consideration of PDP outputs, the GNSO Operating Procedures do specify a separate process for postponement, for example: "</font>At the request of any Council member, for any reason, consideration
of the Final Issue Report may be postponed by not more than one (1) meeting, provided that the Council member details the rationale for such a postponement. Consideration of the Final Issue Report may only be postponed for a total of one (1) meeting, even
if multiple Council members request postponement”. </div>
<div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">As also requested, you will find attached in a word document the current practice as outlined by Mary which was also part of the SCI request as adopted by the GNSO Council on 16 April 2015 (which
has also been attached). As discussed during the meeting, <b><u>you are encouraged to review this first document ahead of the next meeting and include any comments / edits / suggestions you may have.</u></b></div>
<div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">As a reminder, the GNSO Council framed its request to the SCI as follows:</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; line-height: 16px; color: rgb(121, 114, 108); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
WHEREAS:</p>
<ol style="margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 10px; color: rgb(144, 137, 131); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
<li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.5em 1em; padding: 0px; color: rgb(121, 114, 108);">The SCI submitted to the GNSO Council on 05 March 2015 a Review Request that noted the following issue:<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<ol style="margin: 5px 0px 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 10px; list-style: lower-alpha;">
<li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.5em 1em; padding: 0px;">Although there is currently a rule regarding the deadline for timely submission of motions for voting by the GNSO Council (see Section 3.3 of the Operating Procedures), there is none regarding:<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<ul style="margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px 0px 5px 5px; list-style: lower-roman;">
<li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.5em 1em; padding: 0px;">whether, how and by whom a properly submitted motion is to be seconded, and</li><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.5em 1em; padding: 0px;">Treatment of proposed amendments to such motions as either "friendly" or "unfriendly".</li></ul>
</li><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.5em 1em; padding: 0px;">These have been supported by Council practice to date as opposed to operating procedural rules. </li></ol>
</li></ol>
<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; line-height: 16px; color: rgb(121, 114, 108); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
RESOLVED:</p>
<ol style="margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 10px; color: rgb(144, 137, 131); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
<li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.5em 1em; padding: 0px; color: rgb(121, 114, 108);">The GNSO Council requests that the SCI codifies the existing customary practices of the GNSO Council (as described above). </li><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.5em 1em; padding: 0px; color: rgb(121, 114, 108);">If the SCI believes that the current practices are inappropriate, the SCI should convey its reasons for such belief to the Council and develop new processes to govern the seconding
of motions and amendments to motions. </li><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.5em 1em; padding: 0px; color: rgb(121, 114, 108);">The GNSO Council suggests that in carrying out this task the SCI consult past GNSO Chairs and Councilors as well as commonly accepted guides and practices (such as Robert's Rules
of Order) and other ICANN bodies (such as the Board and other SO/ACs).</li></ol>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">Best regards,</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">Marika</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><br>
</div>
<div>
<div><font><b>Deferral of Motions:</b></font></div>
<div><font>The SCI was asked by the council to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date in those situations where a formal process for a deferral is not specifically provided (for
example, certain deferrals are foreseen as part of the GNSO PDP, see <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-en.pdf"><font color="#0000FF"><u>http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-en.pdf</u></font></a><font color="#808080">)</font>.
The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy
at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must
always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative or the negative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also
exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situation that may occur with regard to this informal practice.</font></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>