[council] Motion deadline per operating procedures

Rosette, Kristina krosette at cov.com
Wed Dec 1 21:49:47 UTC 2010

Not surprisingly, I believe the Operating Procedures indicate that's not what the GCOT meant.  The GCOT used hours, not days, in other sections (see 4.4.2 and 7.2.2).  If they had wanted to use hours for this one, they could have. They didn't.   
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 3:12 PM
To: Gomes,Chuck
Cc: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE: [council] Motion deadline per operating procedures

Interesting how we pick what we are going to adhere to process wise (certain requests to assign proxies a while back for example) and what we don't. I maintain that a day is a day (24 hours) and that is exactly what the GCOT meant. Regarding what we did in the past, it is just that, the past (two wrongs don't make a right and all that nonsense). Popping motions in the mix at the 11th hour is becoming the norm, not  the exception. If the Council votes to make an exception on these two motions then I guess that's the way it is. But questioning what a "day"
means is a rediculous argument. These motions did not meet the deadline and I maintain that any exception requires a vote.

If the GCOT meant something else then I would like that explained by them and I would propose that we pull back the procedures in whole to have them all reviewed to be sure we don't have any other convenient interpretations pop up unexpectedly.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] Motion deadline per operating procedures
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
Date: Wed, December 01, 2010 1:52 pm
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim at godaddy.com>, <council at gnso.icann.org>

My guess is,  if we took a survey of Councilors, many would not interpret days so literally as you do and I suspect that the GCOT didn't mean it that literally either.  But I will point out that Glen sent a message reminding Councilors of the 8-day advance requirement and noted that motions were due by 30 November.  Glen did that at my request and as you can tell, I have never interpreted the requirement as 192 hours.  If it means 192 hours, then I suspect that we have missed the deadline many times in the past.
Regardless, I still maintain that we should spend our time focusing on the issues not the process, especially when we are talking about something where we clearly had different understandings regarding the deadline.
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]
On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 12:00 PM
To: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] Motion deadline per operating procedures

The relevant paragraph in section 3.3 of our operating procedures clearly states that motions must be submitted "...no later than 8 days before the GNSO Council meeting." Given that our meeting is scheduled to begin at 1900 UTC on the 8th, neither of the motions submitted yesterday by Mary and Kristina met the deadline of 1900 UTC the 30th.

Again, given that ICANN involves one or more days of travel for many of us, and that any 8 day period also includes at least one weekend, I think it is crucial that motions are submitted as soon as possible and the deadline should be strictly observed.


More information about the council mailing list