Dear all, Please find attached a further updated version of the Waiver of the 10-day Motion Deadline language incorporating Anne¹s suggestion - note that this version therefore REPLACES the version I sent out earlier today dated 12 June 2014. The proposal regarding Remote/Electronic Voting remains unchanged and thus the latest version of that is the one dated 12 June. Cheers Mary -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Date: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 at 7:50 PM To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Updated drafts of Motion Deadline Waiver & E-Voting proposals for discussion in London
Hi,
Yes, I do support that wording in general.
One nit has occured to me since the last time I thought about it, is its specificity on other possible rules that might apply. For example, the council has not approved email voting yet (in fact I thought we were being tech agnostic in that one). So I would recommend putting a period after "without limitation."
But in general yes, I do support it.
avri
On 18-Jun-14 11:32, Ron Andruff wrote:
Dear Mary,
Thank you for the comprehensive report and documentation.
Can you confirm that Anne¹s latest editing offer (noted below) - which I believe Avri supports - has been included? This may have slipped by on the list last week
"If rejected , such a motion shall be considered timely submitted for the next Council meeting and will not be considered to be "resubmitted" for purposes of the rules on resubmission of a motion. Further, if rejected, such a motion may also be dealt with in accordance with all other applicable Operating Procedures and customary practices, including, without limitation, the rules for e-mail voting and deferral of motions."
Thank you,
RA
*Ron Andruff*
*ONR Consulting, Inc.*
*www.ICANNSherpa.com <http://www.ICANNSherpa.com> *
*From:*owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Wong *Sent:* Wednesday, June 18, 2014 07:44 *To:* gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org *Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Updated drafts of Motion Deadline Waiver & E-Voting proposals for discussion in London
Dear SCI members,
In light of the London meeting approaching rapidly and the SCI¹s meeting scheduled for this Saturday 21 June (0730 a.m. London time), I am sending you for your review the latest drafts of the proposed language for Waiver of the 10-Day Motion rule and for Remote/Electronic Voting. Essentially, the following changes were made to the version that was discussed on the last SCI call:
1. In relation to Waiver of the 10-day Motion Deadline, a majority of the sub-group has made a new recommendation that it believes addresses the concerns raised by the so-called ³Option A² and ³Option B² language discussed in the last SCI call the new recommendation basically considers a failed late motion as not submitted and therefore requires it be submitted again per the usual 10-day rule for the next meeting. Please see the attached redline for the proposed change.
2. In relation to E-Voting, the sub-group is recommending at least one substantive addition to the proposed language, and requesting that a further question be brought back to the GNSO Council by Avri as the Council liaison for clarification:
* On the addition the sub-group proposes making it clear that E-Voting is to be permissible only in cases where a motion has already been properly submitted for a regular Council meeting but for various reasons cannot be voted on at that meeting (please see attached redline for the new language in Section 5.) * On the requested clarification the sub-group notes that the Council¹s original request to the SCI mentioned the need for speedy Council action as there is at present no mechanism by which the Council could vote outside a regularly scheduled Council meeting. Although it had initially proceeded on the basis/assumption that the proposed new mechanism of E-Voting was _not_ intended to extend the time or provide an additional voting mechanism for those specific Council actions that, at present, are eligible for Absentee Voting (which takes place 72 hours after a regularly scheduled Council meeting and applies only to certain listed actions such as initiating a PDP), the sub-group believes it will be useful to obtain clarification one way or the other from the Council on this point.
For discussion purposes, I should note that Avri has indicated she does not support the proposed change to the 10-day Motion Deadline Waiver language, and the proposal will be further discussed by the full SCI at its London meeting.
A question had also been raised regarding the origin of the four stated grounds for Absentee Voting in the GNSO Operating Procedures. At the sub-group¹s request staff has checked with our colleagues who supported the original work team that developed the current version of the Procedures. Their notes indicate that (1) those specific grounds were expressly carried over from the old GNSO procedures and unchanged in the current version; and (2) the reason for their inclusion is to encourage full participation and attendance at GNSO Council meetings (i.e. It should not be easy for a Councilor to not attend a meeting or participate in discussions therein and yet be permitted to cast a vote).
I hope this note and the attached documents are helpful.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>