Hi, Sounds like a good task for the group. We also need to include as a base the new PDP requirements that include a individual councilor based right of deferral on PDP votes. Or perhaps we even need to discuss if this is a good reason given the requirements these days for posting of motions and reports weeks in advance of any meeting. The deferral made/makes a lot of sense when the information is still raw, or perhaps incomplete. But whether it makes sense in those cases where a SG/C has had the information in a stable format for weeks, is indeed debatable - in the days when the practice started, often a report was made available a few days before a vote. Should be an interesting discussion. I am glad the council called for the intial research. avri On 15 Mar 2012, at 17:58, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote:
All,
In addition to the tasks we took at our meeting the SCI is asked by the GNSO council to look at the issue of GNSO Council deferral requests for motions. As we agreed to reconvene after mid of April it would be helpful to prepare a little in specifying the problem in more detail. Looking into how in the past the council handled deferrals would be useful.
I'd therefore like to ask Marika whether staff would take over this survey.
From my point of view the following criteria could apply for this survey: - starting with council meetings under the new house structure - type, name and date of motion deferred - deferral requested by which SG/constituency - rationale given for the request - repeated request for deferral if applicable?
Please add any criteria which may be useful.
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich