Hi, I agree with Paul, and am glad that the GNSO operating procedures now allow for motions to be submitted past the traditional deadline (subject to certain conditions of course). Anyway…, although seconding Wulf-Ulrich’s motion is not actually a requirement, I had intended to second it for the Council meeting in Marrakech, so will go ahead and do so now. Thanks. Amr
On Apr 8, 2016, at 8:50 PM, Paul McGrady (Policy) <policy@paulmcgrady.com> wrote:
I support WU’s request. The purpose of the withdrawal was to give us all time to review it and discuss it with our stakeholders. I don’t think it’s helpful for us to delay this another month on a procedural ground.
Best, Paul
Paul McGrady policy@paulmcgrady.com +1-312-882-5020 GNSO Councilor for the IPC
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 09:25 AM To: GNSO council Cc: GNSO secretariat Subject: [council] Fw: GNSO Review WP Feasibility&Prioritization Motion
All, I was just informed that this motion was not deferred but was withdrawn at the public council meeting in Marrekech. As such, it should have been submitted by 4 April to be considered during the 14 April meeting. In order to provide the council the chance to discuss the motion next week as well as to be in line with the GNSO Operating Procedures (see below) I herewith submit the motion according to para 3.3.2 and request to consider it despite submission after the submission deadline. In particular, following the briefing session on 12 April the Council may find a position on whether to vote on this motion.
Sorry for the confusion.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
GNSO Operating Procedures From section 3.3.2 Submission of Reports and Motions
If a motion is submitted after the Submission Deadline, the GNSO Council shall consider the motion if the following requirements are met:
a. The motion (including any report or other supporting documentation) is submitted to the GNSO Council at least 24 hours in advance of the GNSO Council meeting; b. The motion is accompanied by a request to consider the motion despite submission after the Submission Deadline (a “Request for Consideration”); c. A vote on the Request for Consideration shall be called as the first order of business for the agenda item that deals with the motion. The vote on the Request for Consideration must be unanimous (i.e., all Councilors or their proxies must vote and all votes cast must be in favor of considering the motion at such GNSO Council meeting) for the motion to be considered at such GNSO Council meeting.
If these requirements are not met, the motion shall not be considered submitted for the next Council meeting. For the avoidance of doubt, if the motion is proposed again for a subsequent Council meeting, it shall not be considered a resubmitted motion under the rules for Resubmission of a Motion in these Operating Procedures.
From: WUKnoben Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 1:27 PM To: GNSO council Subject: GNSO Review WP Feasibility&Prioritization Motion
Dear council colleagues,
I hope you’ve returned safely and could take some rest from the Marrakech meeting.
I’d like to call to your mind that on the occasion of the public council meeting I’ve withdrawn the motion on the GNSO Review WP Feasibility&Prioritization since from the discussion it became obvious that more SG/C-internal information exchange was needed before submitting the material to the OEC of the Board.
The next council call where the motion could be discussed is scheduled on 14 April with the motion submission deadline on 04 April. This counts a bit more than 2 weeks from now – with the Easter holidays in between. Therefore I would highly appreciate you initiating talks in your related SG/C. Please enter any question/comment to the list you may have regarding the (see attached) • feasibility assessment and prioritization of the GNSO review WP • draft motion
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich