Thanks for that clarification Chuck.

I seem to remember that in the past, we did consider motions that were made in time even if they referenced documents or reports that came to our attention slightly after time, but I see the lack of logic of this approach and therefore the reason why you suggest that motion 3 should also be geared to Council acceptance of an exception.

I think you suggestion on the dates is an excellent one.

Thanks,

Stéphane

Le 14 déc. 2009 à 15:27, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :

Strephane,
 
We did not receive the Issues Report for motion 3 until Friday, 11 December, which was after the deadline for documents, a different Council Procedures requirement.  I should have made that more clear.
 
This discussion brings something else to mind that would be good to do going forward: We should make sure that the dates motions are submitted are always shown with the motions on the wiki and anywhere else they are posted.  In checking the motions for this week's meeting, I see that we do that in some cases and not others.
 
Glen - In the future, I suggest that we make it a practice to always show the date a motion was made after the name of the person who made the motion.
 
Chuck

From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com]
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 9:13 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: GNSO Council
Subject: Re: [council] Motions for 17 Dec Council Meeting

Thanks Chuck,

I don't understand why that requirement applies to motion 3, which you made on Dec 4, therefore well inside the 8-day requirement by my count.

On motion 2, I am in the same boat as you (overwhelmed by emails) and cannot find the original motion proposal (which I take it was made by staff, since it is not even moved yet). Do you have a record of what date that was?

Thanks,

Stéphane

Le 14 déc. 2009 à 15:02, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :

Thanks for the correction Stephane.  Not sure how I missed your second of motion 3.
 
Regarding the Council Operating Procedures requirement that motions should be submitted 8 days prior to a Council meeting, that requirement would apply to motion 2, motion 3 and motion 4.  In all three cases the Coucil would need to agree to an exception to the procedures requirement or we will have to delay action on all three topics.
 
Chuck

From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com]
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 8:43 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: GNSO Council
Subject: Re: [council] Motions for 17 Dec Council Meeting

Hi Chuck,

Your description is incorrect. I had seconded motion 3 on December 6.

Further, it is my assessment of the 8 day notice requirement set out by article 3.3 of the GNSO operating rules and procedures that motion 4, proposed by Wolf on Dec 13, cannot be submitted for our Dec 17 meeting.

I am happy to be corrected if this assessment is wrong.

Thanks,

Stéphane

Le 13 déc. 2009 à 14:22, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :

For our 17 Dec Council meeting, the following four motions listed below with their status are posted at https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?17_december_motions):
  1. Motion To Approve Tool Kit of Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups (amended 4 Dec 09) - moved & seconded
  2. Motion to Approve the Alternative Proposal recommended by the Special Trademark Issues Review Team - needs to be moved and seconded
  3. Motion to delay decision regarding initiation of a Vertical Integration PDP - needs to be seconded
  4. Proposed Motion on Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting - needs to be seconded
At this point, only motion 1 above is ready for action.  So we need someone to make motion 2 and, if that happens, we will need a second.  We also need seconds on motions 3 & 4. 
 
Chuck