I don’t think resubmitting a motion is outside the scope of the present charter because submission and handling of motions used to be part of the improvements process (council operating rules).
In addition the two bullet points – at least from my point of view – do not limit the SCI existence because of the periodic iteration.
 
Nevertheless the general question should be discussed. I wonder whether we could achieve in Durban a general “go ahead thinking of a broader SCI scope” by the council and after a while coming back to the council with concrete suggestions. I doubt that we can expect more guidance.
 
See my comments below

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

 
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 5:15 PM
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council Chair re SCI Charter
 
Dear SCI members,
 

As discussed in our meeting yesterday, below for your review is a draft message alerting Jonathan that the SCI would like to discuss the issues concerning the SCI Charter with the Council during the working session in Durban.

 

Please send any comments by Friday, 05 July.

 

Best regards,

 

Julie

 

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

 

----------------------------- Draft Message to Jonathan ------------------------

 

Dear Jonathan,

 

As you know, the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) will provide an update on its work to the GNSO Council in Durban on 13 July.  One of issues the SCI is considering is an update of its Charter, as we have reported previously.  This began as an effort to update the Charter to include procedures to elect the SCI Chair and Vice Chair, but recently the SCI also has considered whether other updates are necessary.  After discussing possible updates the SCI members realized that they need guidance from the GNSO Council as to whether the SCI's work should be limited to a review of the procedures developed in the GNSO Implementations process, or whether the GNSO Council intends for the SCI to address other procedural issues not related to the improvements process. WUK: One such example might be the re-submission of a motion, which is an issue the Council asked the SCI to address and for which the SCI currently is considering revised procedures.

 

The current Charter states:

"The GNSO Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) will be responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of recommendations provided by the Operational Steering Committee (OSC), Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT) and approved by the GNSO Council:

  • On request for those recommendations that have been identified to present immediate problems
  • On a periodic timescale for all recommendations in order to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by the SCI on which recommendations should be reviewed)"


The SCI seeks guidance from the Council on what is its intent with respect to the duration of the SCI work. WUK: Should the SCI cease to exist when it has completed the second bullet above from the Charter? Or Should the SCI continue indefinitely to consider procedural questions as raised WUK: the by the GNSO Council or a group Chartered by the Council?

 

It seems that these fundamental questions need to be addressed before the SCI can consider revisions to the Charter.  The SCI members look forward to discussing these questions with the Council in Durban.

 

Best regards,

 

Ron

 

Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI