Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For your review and feedback - current GNSO practice in relation to motions
From: Marika Konings <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 19:12:16 +0000
List-Id: [email-masked]

Dear All,

Following on from the meeting today, please find hereunder the message that
was sent by the SCI on 12 December 2012 to the GNSO Council  concerning the
issue of deferrals. Do note that in relation to consideration of PDP
outputs, the GNSO Operating Procedures do specify a separate process for
postponement, for example: "At the request of any Council member, for any
reason, consideration  of the Final Issue Report may be postponed by not
more than one (1) meeting, provided that the Council member details the
rationale for such a postponement. Consideration of the Final Issue Report
may only be postponed for a total of one (1) meeting, even  if multiple
Council members request postponement².

As also requested, you will find attached in a word document the current
practice as outlined by Mary which was also part of the SCI request as
adopted by the GNSO Council on 16 April 2015 (which  has also been
attached). As discussed during the meeting, you are encouraged to review
this first document ahead of the next meeting and include any comments /
edits / suggestions you may have.

As a reminder, the GNSO Council framed its request to the SCI as follows:

WHEREAS:
1. The SCI submitted to the GNSO Council on 05 March 2015 a Review Request
that noted the following issue:
> 1. Although there is currently a rule regarding the deadline for timely
> submission of motions for voting by the GNSO Council (see Section 3.3 of the
> Operating Procedures), there is none regarding:
>> * whether, how and by whom a properly submitted motion is to be seconded, and
>> * Treatment of proposed amendments to such motions as either "friendly" or
>> "unfriendly".
> 2. These have been supported by Council practice to date as opposed to
> operating procedural rules.
RESOLVED:
1. The GNSO Council requests that the SCI codifies the existing customary
practices of the GNSO Council (as described above).
2. If the SCI believes that the current practices are inappropriate, the SCI
should convey its reasons for such belief to the Council and develop new
processes to govern the seconding  of motions and amendments to motions.
3. The GNSO Council suggests that in carrying out this task the SCI consult
past GNSO Chairs and Councilors as well as commonly accepted guides and
practices (such as Robert's Rules  of Order) and other ICANN bodies (such as
the Board and other SO/ACs).

Best regards,

Marika

Deferral of Motions:
The SCI was asked by the council to consider the current GNSO Council
informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a
later date in those situations where a formal process for a deferral is not
specifically provided (for  example, certain deferrals are foreseen as part
of the GNSO PDP, see
http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-en.pdf
<http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-en.pdf> ).  The
SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a
procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI
concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions
was done as a matter of courtesy  at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO
Council. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create
a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary
to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must  always
exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative or the negative. Given
that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the
Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or
deny any request and can also  exercise his or her discretion when
determining how to handle any specific situation that may occur with regard
to this informal practice.