Hi Anne, On Jan 28, 2015, at 7:18 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> wrote:
Thanks Amr. As I understand it, you do favor the taking up of the 10 day waiver rule work in connection with the resubmission of motions sooner rather than later
Yes…, that is correct. I do, however, believe we need to place this in the correct context when explaining our rationale to the council. I had offered the amendment to the council motion regarding the 10-day rule waiver, making sure that it was clear to the councillors voting on the motion that this did not affect the rules regarding resubmission of motions. To be sure of this, myself, I dug up the SCI email archives and transcripts that supported my belief; that this was indeed the intent of the SCI. I suggest we revisit any and all references in preparation for whatever proposal we submit to the council on this matter. It seems to me that we need to be very consistent in our own decision-making in order to provide the council with very solid and confident recommendations. Since joining the SCI, this committee has always been praised for its excessive use of due diligence to come up with confident recommendations that have always achieved unanimity in our consensus, and until very recently, also the unanimity of council votes on the recommendations we provided.
whereas Avri does not
Avri would need to clarify this herself. My personal understanding (and I may be mistaken) was that she was not very much in favour of this being revisited, but would abstain from disagreeing with the rest of the committee. If I’ve understood her correctly, her strong disagreement was with trying to tackle the issue of revision of the GNSO decision-making designations (consensus levels) until we have a clearer picture of what the full GNSO review would include. I share this same belief.
and you do favor taking up again with Council the topic of friendly amendments?
Yes…, very much so. Thanks. Amr