Hi, While I am fine with the status quo - and prefer guidelines instead of more rules, I agree with most of the RySG reasoning. In fact there had been discussion in this group of formulations that included the possibility of multiple deferrals for good reasons - such as the issue is not ready yet because further work needs to be done on finishing reports and comment periods. I tend to not support voting on whether to vote. I also find rules about dictating where something should be on the agenda to be way overkill. That is why I do not support option 2. avri On 17 Aug 2012, at 14:53, Ray Fassett wrote:
To Avri's question, there has been some discussion on this within the RySG which I bring forth below for our discussion:
-------------------------------------------------------
It is unlikely that a decision will be any easier to make a year from now and dealing with the issue now would probably be more efficient in terms of resource usage because of the recent work of the SC. Therefore, [we] don't like option 1. Option 1 might actually reduce the number of deferral requests during the year it's under review, but that doesn't solve the potential for abuse later on.
But [we] don't like option 2 either...too rigid...okay setting a limit of one deferral as long as there is an exception procedure; for example, one deferral request shall be automatically allowed unless a simple majority of Councilors from both houses overrule it and no additional deferrals shall be allowed except by a simple majority vote of both houses. We can count on there being special circumstances where exceptions are appropriate so it is necessary to allow for them and to do so in a way that requires reasonable Council support.
Why it is necessary to make the deferred item first on the next agenda? It makes sense to put the item early in the agenda so as to minimize the chance of it not being handled because of an agenda that cannot be completed. There are always administrative items that need to be handled first. Also, sometimes certain Councilors, Staff or guests have to join the call late or leave the call early, so there needs to be some flexibility to manage such situations...suggest language like this: "A deferred item should be put as early in the next agenda as possible with goals to maximize Councilor and other key player participation and to minimize the chances of there not being enough time to act on the item."
------------------------------------------------------
I hope to be able to discuss these points on the list or next teleconference.
Ray
-----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 3:02 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposal for Deferral of Motions
Thought I had sent this a while ago, but sent it from an unsubscribed address.
--- against option 2 ---
Can live with status quo
But I do not understand why it was narrowed down to just these two alternatives when so much more was discussed.
avri