Actions re: Current Practice in Relation to Motions
Dear SCI Members, Per the action item below from the SCI meeting on 05 March relating to the Sub Team A report on Current Practice in Relation to Motions, Mary and I have drafted language for your consideration for a revised version of the GNSO Operating Procedures. The language is contained in a new section 3.3.3 Submitting, Seconding, and Amending Motions in the attached document. The language is based on the documentation of the current procedure, as well as the changes to current procedure, recommended by Sub Team A and agreed to by the SCI. The recommendations are provided below for reference. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Sub Team A Recommendations ISSUE 1: Must every motion be seconded? AGREED: Every motion must be seconded before a vote. ACTION: UPDATE THE PROCESS AND FLOW CHART ACCORDINGLY (in red below and attached): 5. If a GNSO Council member (other than the proposer) seconds the motion the GNSO Council Chair calls for its discussion or a vote. ISSUE 2: Must the seconder be not just a different Councilor but also a Councilor from a different Stakeholder Group/Constituency? AGREED: Do not include a requirement that the seconder should be from a different stakeholder group or constituency. ACTION: NO CHANGE TO THE CURRENT PROCESS. ISSUE 3: Should there be a deadline for motions to be seconded? AGREED: A motion should be seconded prior to discussion. ATION: UPDATE THE PROCESS AND FLOW CHART ACCORDINGLY (in red below and attached): 4. The motion can be discussed up to the Council meeting, but discussion and voting on the motion at the Council meeting cannot proceed without a second. ISSUE 4: Should there be a time limit /deadline for submitting amendments, to allow each SG/C adequate time to discuss them rather than have the Council deal with what could potentially be substantively new subject matter "on the fly" during a Council meeting? When should a motion be deferred in certain circumstances, e.g. "competing" amendments? AGREED: Do not require a deadline for submission of amendments prior to, or during, discussion of a motion. ACTION: NO CHANGE TO CURRENT PROCESS. From: <owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Monday, March 7, 2016 at 10:46 AM To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Actions: SCI Meeting 05 March 2016 Dear SCI members, Please see below the actions captured from the SCI meeting held at ICANN 55 in Marrakech on Saturday, 05 March. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. For your reference, the Sub Team A and B Reports are attached along with the related materials. With respect to the next Sub Team B meeting, staff will send a Doodle Poll. In addition, for the next SCI call these have been held on Thursdays at 1800 UTC. Staff will separately ask for RSVPs for a possible SCI call on Thursday, 24 March. For these two meetings we are skipping the week immediately following the ICANN 55 meeting (13-19 March) as is our usual practice. Kind regards, Julie Actions: SCI Meeting 05 March 2016 1. Sub Team A: Report to the SCI on Current Practice in Relation to Motions Action Item: Staff will draft language for the SCI to consider to incorporate the informal procedures into the GNSO Operating Procedures. 2. Sub Team B: Report to the SCI on Chair-Vice Chair Elections Issue 2: Is there a gap to be addressed when the Vice Chairs' terms end at the same time as that of the Chair, and no Chair is conclusively elected by that time?
From the Report to the SCI: Suggested new language for the GNSO Operating Procedures: “In the case where both Vice-Chairs’ terms on the Council end at the same time as the Chair, and no Chair is conclusively elected, this procedure would apply: Each House should designate a new or continuing councilor, including the voting and non-voting NCAs, to temporarily fill the role of Vice Chair on an interim basis, not as an elected Vice Chair. These individuals will co-chair the Chair election and once the election is completed their service in those roles would end. Candidates for Chair would not be eligible to serve as designated Interim Vice Chairs, to avoid potential conflicts of interest."
Action Item: Sub Team B will continue discussion on this issue. Consider whether there should be steps for each possibilty that could ensure a predictable outcome. Issue 4: Should the timetable (or a modality for setting one) for the GNSO chair election be specified in the Operating Procedures? Action Item: Concerning the Election Timeline — It was noted that the timeline will be very important if incoming councilors can be considered for Chair elections. The request is for the representatives from the two Houses in the SCI to review the timeline and bring their comments back to the SCI. New issue 5: If there is no Chair elected is it the Vice Chairs who run the meetings and calls the votes? Action Item: Sub Team B will consider this issue.
Hi Julie, Apologies to you, Mary and all for any negligence on my part to this. I was not aware that the SCI had reached an agreement on this topic. I have two points I would still like to discuss further:
On Mar 23, 2016, at 9:41 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
[SNIP]
Sub Team A Recommendations
ISSUE 1: Must every motion be seconded? AGREED: Every motion must be seconded before a vote. ACTION: UPDATE THE PROCESS AND FLOW CHART ACCORDINGLY (in red below and attached): 5. If a GNSO Council member (other than the proposer) seconds the motion the GNSO Council Chair calls for its discussion or a vote.
ISSUE 2: Must the seconder be not just a different Councilor but also a Councilor from a different Stakeholder Group/Constituency? AGREED: Do not include a requirement that the seconder should be from a different stakeholder group or constituency. ACTION: NO CHANGE TO THE CURRENT PROCESS.
ISSUE 3: Should there be a deadline for motions to be seconded? AGREED: A motion should be seconded prior to discussion. ATION: UPDATE THE PROCESS AND FLOW CHART ACCORDINGLY (in red below and attached): 4. The motion can be discussed up to the Council meeting, but discussion and voting on the motion at the Council meeting cannot proceed without a second.
Is there a reason why the SCI believes that motions should not be discussed during Council meetings if not seconded? Couldn’t we leave it to the discretion of the Council to make this decision?
ISSUE 4: Should there be a time limit /deadline for submitting amendments, to allow each SG/C adequate time to discuss them rather than have the Council deal with what could potentially be substantively new subject matter "on the fly" during a Council meeting? When should a motion be deferred in certain circumstances, e.g. "competing" amendments? AGREED: Do not require a deadline for submission of amendments prior to, or during, discussion of a motion. ACTION: NO CHANGE TO CURRENT PROCESS.
I was actually hoping that we could recommend a deadline for suggesting amendments to motions. I’d be happy to discuss this on tomorrow’s call, if time permits. Thanks. Amr
Hi Julie, Apologies to you, Mary and all for any negligence on my part to this. I was not aware that the SCI had reached an agreement on this topic. I have two points I would still like to discuss further:
On Mar 23, 2016, at 9:41 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
[SNIP]
Sub Team A Recommendations
ISSUE 1: Must every motion be seconded? AGREED: Every motion must be seconded before a vote. ACTION: UPDATE THE PROCESS AND FLOW CHART ACCORDINGLY (in red below and attached): 5. If a GNSO Council member (other than the proposer) seconds the motion the GNSO Council Chair calls for its discussion or a vote.
ISSUE 2: Must the seconder be not just a different Councilor but also a Councilor from a different Stakeholder Group/Constituency? AGREED: Do not include a requirement that the seconder should be from a different stakeholder group or constituency. ACTION: NO CHANGE TO THE CURRENT PROCESS.
ISSUE 3: Should there be a deadline for motions to be seconded? AGREED: A motion should be seconded prior to discussion. ATION: UPDATE THE PROCESS AND FLOW CHART ACCORDINGLY (in red below and attached): 4. The motion can be discussed up to the Council meeting, but discussion and voting on the motion at the Council meeting cannot proceed without a second.
Is there a reason why the SCI believes that motions should not be discussed during Council meetings if not seconded? Couldn’t we leave it to the discretion of the Council to make this decision?
ISSUE 4: Should there be a time limit /deadline for submitting amendments, to allow each SG/C adequate time to discuss them rather than have the Council deal with what could potentially be substantively new subject matter "on the fly" during a Council meeting? When should a motion be deferred in certain circumstances, e.g. "competing" amendments? AGREED: Do not require a deadline for submission of amendments prior to, or during, discussion of a motion. ACTION: NO CHANGE TO CURRENT PROCESS.
I was actually hoping that we could recommend a deadline for suggesting amendments to motions. I’d be happy to discuss this on tomorrow’s call, if time permits. Thanks. Amr
Hi Amr, No apologies necessary and perhaps I was incorrect in capturing the action item from the meeting in Marrakech that the staff should proceed to draft language. However, as this is just draft language staff did anticipate that there would be discussion and consideration on it at the meeting tomorrow at the very least. On your first question if I recall correctly (and Sub Team members can correct me if I am wrong) I think there were two reasons for not starting discussion on a motion without a second. One was that if there was no second and/or one not forthcoming it would be a waste of time to discuss the motion. The other was that a motion without a second might be considered to not have sufficient support for discussion. However, I’ll defer to the Sub Team to provide further clarification. On your second question the Sub Team discussed extensively whether to have a deadline for amendments, but again if I recall correctly (and here again I defer to Sub Team members) I think it was decided that having a deadline could inhibit a productive discussion of an amendment, and that in many cases amendments have been raised during discussion and have resulted in a revised motion that after discussion has passed with the benefit of being amended. Kind regards, Julie On 3/23/16, 4:31 PM, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:
Hi Julie,
Apologies to you, Mary and all for any negligence on my part to this. I was not aware that the SCI had reached an agreement on this topic. I have two points I would still like to discuss further:
On Mar 23, 2016, at 9:41 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
[SNIP]
Sub Team A Recommendations
ISSUE 1: Must every motion be seconded? AGREED: Every motion must be seconded before a vote. ACTION: UPDATE THE PROCESS AND FLOW CHART ACCORDINGLY (in red below and attached): 5. If a GNSO Council member (other than the proposer) seconds the motion the GNSO Council Chair calls for its discussion or a vote.
ISSUE 2: Must the seconder be not just a different Councilor but also a Councilor from a different Stakeholder Group/Constituency? AGREED: Do not include a requirement that the seconder should be from a different stakeholder group or constituency. ACTION: NO CHANGE TO THE CURRENT PROCESS.
ISSUE 3: Should there be a deadline for motions to be seconded? AGREED: A motion should be seconded prior to discussion. ATION: UPDATE THE PROCESS AND FLOW CHART ACCORDINGLY (in red below and attached): 4. The motion can be discussed up to the Council meeting, but discussion and voting on the motion at the Council meeting cannot proceed without a second.
Is there a reason why the SCI believes that motions should not be discussed during Council meetings if not seconded? Couldn’t we leave it to the discretion of the Council to make this decision?
ISSUE 4: Should there be a time limit /deadline for submitting amendments, to allow each SG/C adequate time to discuss them rather than have the Council deal with what could potentially be substantively new subject matter "on the fly" during a Council meeting? When should a motion be deferred in certain circumstances, e.g. "competing" amendments? AGREED: Do not require a deadline for submission of amendments prior to, or during, discussion of a motion. ACTION: NO CHANGE TO CURRENT PROCESS.
I was actually hoping that we could recommend a deadline for suggesting amendments to motions. I’d be happy to discuss this on tomorrow’s call, if time permits.
Thanks.
Amr
Hi Julie, Thanks for adding some context to the rationale behind the current draft language. That’s really helpful. And I believe that you are correct; that staff prepping draft language was an action item. If I recall correctly, this was one of the action items we agreed to close to the end of the SCI meeting in Marrakech. Others can correct me if I am mistaken. Also…, going over the transcripts of the Saturday morning SCI meeting in Marrakech, I realised that this was discussed as a first agenda item, which I missed because I was tardy in getting to the meeting on time. My fault really. :) Thanks again. Amr
On Mar 24, 2016, at 12:07 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Amr,
No apologies necessary and perhaps I was incorrect in capturing the action item from the meeting in Marrakech that the staff should proceed to draft language. However, as this is just draft language staff did anticipate that there would be discussion and consideration on it at the meeting tomorrow at the very least.
On your first question if I recall correctly (and Sub Team members can correct me if I am wrong) I think there were two reasons for not starting discussion on a motion without a second. One was that if there was no second and/or one not forthcoming it would be a waste of time to discuss the motion. The other was that a motion without a second might be considered to not have sufficient support for discussion. However, I’ll defer to the Sub Team to provide further clarification.
On your second question the Sub Team discussed extensively whether to have a deadline for amendments, but again if I recall correctly (and here again I defer to Sub Team members) I think it was decided that having a deadline could inhibit a productive discussion of an amendment, and that in many cases amendments have been raised during discussion and have resulted in a revised motion that after discussion has passed with the benefit of being amended.
Kind regards, Julie
On 3/23/16, 4:31 PM, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:
Hi Julie,
Apologies to you, Mary and all for any negligence on my part to this. I was not aware that the SCI had reached an agreement on this topic. I have two points I would still like to discuss further:
On Mar 23, 2016, at 9:41 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
[SNIP]
Sub Team A Recommendations
ISSUE 1: Must every motion be seconded? AGREED: Every motion must be seconded before a vote. ACTION: UPDATE THE PROCESS AND FLOW CHART ACCORDINGLY (in red below and attached): 5. If a GNSO Council member (other than the proposer) seconds the motion the GNSO Council Chair calls for its discussion or a vote.
ISSUE 2: Must the seconder be not just a different Councilor but also a Councilor from a different Stakeholder Group/Constituency? AGREED: Do not include a requirement that the seconder should be from a different stakeholder group or constituency. ACTION: NO CHANGE TO THE CURRENT PROCESS.
ISSUE 3: Should there be a deadline for motions to be seconded? AGREED: A motion should be seconded prior to discussion. ATION: UPDATE THE PROCESS AND FLOW CHART ACCORDINGLY (in red below and attached): 4. The motion can be discussed up to the Council meeting, but discussion and voting on the motion at the Council meeting cannot proceed without a second.
Is there a reason why the SCI believes that motions should not be discussed during Council meetings if not seconded? Couldn’t we leave it to the discretion of the Council to make this decision?
ISSUE 4: Should there be a time limit /deadline for submitting amendments, to allow each SG/C adequate time to discuss them rather than have the Council deal with what could potentially be substantively new subject matter "on the fly" during a Council meeting? When should a motion be deferred in certain circumstances, e.g. "competing" amendments? AGREED: Do not require a deadline for submission of amendments prior to, or during, discussion of a motion. ACTION: NO CHANGE TO CURRENT PROCESS.
I was actually hoping that we could recommend a deadline for suggesting amendments to motions. I’d be happy to discuss this on tomorrow’s call, if time permits.
Thanks.
Amr
Chiming in late to this, when we started discussing I searched Wikipedia for the reason of seconding a motion. The original rationale - grounding from US parliamentary procedures - is as Julie explained: avoid useless discussion.
From this to me it consequently means that a second is needed before the discussion begins. I would say that from submitting a motion according to the rules (10 days before the meeting) a preliminary discussion on the list could take place (e.g. submitting amendments) but when the item is called to discussion at the meeting a second should be available before the meeting discussion on this point begins. So wasting meeting time could be avoided.
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 11:07 PM To: Amr Elsadr Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Actions re: Current Practice in Relation to Motions Hi Amr, No apologies necessary and perhaps I was incorrect in capturing the action item from the meeting in Marrakech that the staff should proceed to draft language. However, as this is just draft language staff did anticipate that there would be discussion and consideration on it at the meeting tomorrow at the very least. On your first question if I recall correctly (and Sub Team members can correct me if I am wrong) I think there were two reasons for not starting discussion on a motion without a second. One was that if there was no second and/or one not forthcoming it would be a waste of time to discuss the motion. The other was that a motion without a second might be considered to not have sufficient support for discussion. However, I’ll defer to the Sub Team to provide further clarification. On your second question the Sub Team discussed extensively whether to have a deadline for amendments, but again if I recall correctly (and here again I defer to Sub Team members) I think it was decided that having a deadline could inhibit a productive discussion of an amendment, and that in many cases amendments have been raised during discussion and have resulted in a revised motion that after discussion has passed with the benefit of being amended. Kind regards, Julie On 3/23/16, 4:31 PM, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:
Hi Julie,
Apologies to you, Mary and all for any negligence on my part to this. I was not aware that the SCI had reached an agreement on this topic. I have two points I would still like to discuss further:
On Mar 23, 2016, at 9:41 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
[SNIP]
Sub Team A Recommendations
ISSUE 1: Must every motion be seconded? AGREED: Every motion must be seconded before a vote. ACTION: UPDATE THE PROCESS AND FLOW CHART ACCORDINGLY (in red below and attached): 5. If a GNSO Council member (other than the proposer) seconds the motion the GNSO Council Chair calls for its discussion or a vote.
ISSUE 2: Must the seconder be not just a different Councilor but also a Councilor from a different Stakeholder Group/Constituency? AGREED: Do not include a requirement that the seconder should be from a different stakeholder group or constituency. ACTION: NO CHANGE TO THE CURRENT PROCESS.
ISSUE 3: Should there be a deadline for motions to be seconded? AGREED: A motion should be seconded prior to discussion. ATION: UPDATE THE PROCESS AND FLOW CHART ACCORDINGLY (in red below and attached): 4. The motion can be discussed up to the Council meeting, but discussion and voting on the motion at the Council meeting cannot proceed without a second.
Is there a reason why the SCI believes that motions should not be discussed during Council meetings if not seconded? Couldn’t we leave it to the discretion of the Council to make this decision?
ISSUE 4: Should there be a time limit /deadline for submitting amendments, to allow each SG/C adequate time to discuss them rather than have the Council deal with what could potentially be substantively new subject matter "on the fly" during a Council meeting? When should a motion be deferred in certain circumstances, e.g. "competing" amendments? AGREED: Do not require a deadline for submission of amendments prior to, or during, discussion of a motion. ACTION: NO CHANGE TO CURRENT PROCESS.
I was actually hoping that we could recommend a deadline for suggesting amendments to motions. I’d be happy to discuss this on tomorrow’s call, if time permits.
Thanks.
Amr
participants (3)
-
Amr Elsadr -
Julie Hedlund -
WUKnoben