Dear Council colleagues
Following my indication that the IPC would favour the GNSO supporting the ALAC Petition, Greg suggested that I put forward a Motion to that effect which would have to be considered as a late Motion under the procedure in our Operating Procedures
at sections 3.3.2 a, b and c (extract copied below). Having subsequently seen the indication from Sam that the RySG also does not support the Petition, and discussed further with my Constituency,
our conclusion is that such a Motion would have no prospect of passing at this time and Council’s time would be better spent on agreeing the path forward for reviews. The IPC would however like to put forward a proposed Motion for possible late consideration
on Thursday, relating to the next steps on Reviews. We believe that it will send a much stronger message to the Board if the GNSO Council votes on a position, rather than simply sending a letter.
Of the four options summarised by Greg for our consideration and discussion on Thursday, the IPC supports option 1, as expressed by Tomslin as follows:
As we understand it, this was the proposal discussed in Prague during the SOAC Leaders’ meeting, which seemed to gain support. With that in mind, our proposed Motion envisages
that the Council might vote to support option 1 and proposes that we convene a small team to develop a draft Bylaws amendment and a possible plan for the actual review of reviews.
We appreciate that this is being proposed on very short notice – and we also appreciate that there is time on the Council agenda to discuss next steps on reviews. We would ask,
therefore, that the Request for Consideration on Late Notice, required as a precursor, and, if supported, the subsequent consideration of the Motion is scheduled on our agenda to happen after the discussion item. This would allow Council the opportunity to
vote, if we do reach agreement on this as a path forward. Of course, if a different path is agreed or any Councillors are not in a position to vote, it would be open to me to withdraw the Motion or for the Request for Consideration to be rejected (since it
requires unanimity). The Motion could then be re-presented (amended as necessary) for either our August meeting or even, potentially, for a special meeting before then. The proposed Motion is being presented,
therefore, to get something on the table for others to consider and see whether you might support it.
The Request for Consideration on Late Notice, and the Draft Motion are attached, and also here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tHkxgi_2mvWWD8CNqe91kPSj132Y_q3HGRW--PkJjMk/edit?usp=sharing
Many thanks for your consideration.
|
Susan Payne
|
|
28 Little Russell Street, |