Hi All, I agree. Just as a point of clarification, I read "2 total" as 2 *RE*introductions of a failed motion, meaning that all motions get a total of 3 opportunities to be considered, with all three occurring within a 12-month period. Angie Angie Graves WEB Group, Inc. On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 5:43 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>wrote:
I agree. Let's start with this plus a second from each house.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Mike O'Connor Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 11:30 PM To: James M. Bladel Cc: Ron Andruff ; 'Avri Doria' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.**org<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion
hi all,
i'll join the parade in favor of "not too many bites at the apple", and like James' initial bid.
mikey
On Jun 4, 2013, at 4:26 PM, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
Ron and Committee Members:
Off the cuff, I think there are two approaches to Ron's second question:
(1) How many times in a given period can a motion be reintroduced
And/or
(2) How much time must elapse before a failed motion can be reintroduced?
The legal, government, commercial, non-profit and academic worlds probably have a jillion examples for each. So any decision this group reaches will be, by some measure, arbitrary. :)
Therefore, I will start the bidding at: (1) twice, total and (2) 12 calendar months.
Thoughts?
J.
On 6/4/13 16:18, "Ron Andruff" <randruff@rnapartners.com> wrote:
Agree with Avri re 1-2; but would like a clarification as to why this would need to be on the 'consent' agenda. Can one of the lawyers in our midst clarify that for us?
Regarding what James noted as avoiding a 'zombie motion' (as in one that will never die) I agree that it would make sense to have a limit on how many times a motion can be resubmitted.
How many times does the Committee think would be appropriate?
Kind regards,
RA
Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com
-----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@**icann.org<owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-**impl-sc@icann.org<owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:43 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.**org <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion Importance: High
Hi,
I support 1-3. As I understand it one would need to meet all 3 conditions, otherwise there would be no stopping it being on every agenda.
Also I thought some wanted to add a rate throttling mechanism or a maximum count.
I agree 4 is superfluous since any council member can ask for something to be taken off the consent agenda, not that i expect a resubmitted motion would ever make the consent agenda.
avri
On 4 Jun 2013, at 16:31, Julie Hedlund wrote:
Dear SCI members,
As discussed on today's call, we will continue discussion on the list on
re-submission of a motion. There was agreement on option 2 (see below), but not on which criteria to include (see comments from Anne and James in their emails below).
Please send your comments to the list. This also will be on the agenda at
our next meeting.
Best regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Procedure for Re-Submission of a Motion:
Option 2 -- Set one or more high-level criteria (in this order):
1) Provide a reasoning to justify the resubmission of a motion. Complete
no later than the deadline for submitting a motion -- 8 days prior to the next GNSO Council meeting.
2) Publish the text of the re-submitted motion. Complete no later than
the deadline for submitting a motion -- 8 days prior to the next GNSO Council meeting.
3) Require a seconder of the motion from each house as a prerequisite for
placing the re-submission of the motion on the consent agenda.
4) Allow a councilor to ask for the re-submission of the motion to be
taken off the consent agenda and to request a Council vote on whether to accept the re-submission.
------------------------------**------------------------------**--- From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrlaw.com> Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:42 PM To: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com>, James Bladel
<jbladel@godaddy.com>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.**org<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> " <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.**org <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>>
Cc: 'Jennifer Standiford' <JStandiford@web.com> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Action item from SCI
Meeting 06 March Re-Submitting a Motion
Ron, I had wanted to report to SCI that in its full meeting in Beijing, the IPC
agreed to the first two criteria listed in Item 2 of the "one or more high level criteria" to be set for resubmitting a motion.
Anne ------------------------------**------------------------------** --------- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@**icann.org<owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-**impl-sc@icann.org<owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel?Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:51 PM?To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.**org?Cc<http://gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org?Cc>: Jennifer Standiford?Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Action item from SCI Meeting 06 March -- Re-Submitting a Motion?Importance: High
Hello SCI Team:
Last week, Jennifer and I were able to consult with the Registrar
Stakeholder Group (RrSG) on this issue. We can report that RrSG members strongly favor Option #2.
Additionally, Registrars agree with the proposed criteria listed, -except-
for item #2.4, which they note could be redundant if Items #2.1-#2.3 are followed. Finally, RrSG members would like to see the inclusion of some limitations (per year or minimum time frame) on how frequently a motion may be re-introduced.
We look forward to further discussions on our next call.
Thanks--
J.
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)