On 23 Dec 2012, at 05:49, Jonathan Robinson wrote:

The question should simply be "should there be any restrictions on resubmitting motions that previously appeared before the Council? If so, what should those restrictions be and are there any exceptions?

I think that the answer is yes there must be restrictions. I suggest the following 3 1. there should be an interval of several months 2. there should have been a substantive change to the motion 3. there should be a change in the countervailing conditions. Reasons that are not acceptable: - I did not understand how I should vote - I now see the error of my vote Otherwise, there is no reason to not bring up a losing motion each and every meeting. And things that should never be accepted is a chair explaining the way to vote after a vote has already been cast. It is very difficult to not see that as vote manipulation. There should be not exceptions, and the Chair should not have discretion in this matter. The impression of a chair losing his or her neutrality by appearing to manipulate a vote is a very bad thing for the g-council. avri

How about 1 AND (2 or 3) Some other comments inset. On 23 Dec 2012, at 07:12, Jonathan Robinson wrote:

Equally bad for the Council (in my view) is a vote going the "wrong" way based on procedural misunderstanding or glitch.

Unfortunately that is a matter of subjective judgement on whether it was a glitch or a changed vote (the oops condition or the twisted arm condition) This notion that we can go around the process whenever we think there was a 'wrong' way taken is the most dangerous of prevalent GNSO concepts. And not one that the SCI should take for given, in my opinion.

The outcome should represent the intention of the Councillors (or the groups directing their votes) and certainly not be an accident of a procedure.

You and I should probably discuss this specific case one to one early in the new year.

Be glad to. Though the specific case in the only case study in the current question, so to exclude it from discussion in the SCI as an exemplar, seems a bit problematic to me.

As far as the SCI is concerned my view is that we should, as far as possible, focus on the general issue. Our response should cover the specific item that gave rise to the question but not be solely driven by it.

e.g. A motion is defeated. The proposer is simply not happy or believes that councillors can be persuaded to vote differently next time.

Question: With your three below, are they:

1 AND 2 AND 3

Or are they

1 OR 2 OR 3

I suggest the latter.

Thanks,

Jonathan

-----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: 23 December 2012 11:16 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task

On 23 Dec 2012, at 05:49, Jonathan Robinson wrote:

...

The question should simply be "should there be any restrictions on

resubmitting motions that previously appeared before the Council? If so, what should those restrictions be and are there any exceptions?

...

I think that the answer is yes there must be restrictions. I suggest the following 3

1. there should be an interval of several months

2. there should have been a substantive change to the motion

3. there should be a change in the countervailing conditions.

It is most likely that te scop Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Robinson [jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Received: Sunday, 23 Dec 2012, 3:51am To: KnobenW@telekom.de [KnobenW@telekom.de]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] CC: 'Neuman, Jeff' [Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task All, Jeff Neuman raised a point on the GNSO Council list that the question being posed to the SCI should be a simpler one focussed on the general principle not the specific item that caused us to question the principle. I am in agreement with this. Therefore my suggestion is that the SCI focus on the essential question i.e. under what circumstances is it acceptable / permissible for a motion to be submitted to the GNSO Council when such a motion is identical to one that has been previously voted down by the Council. Jeff put it well and I am support of his formulation of the question as follows. The question should simply be "should there be any restrictions on resubmitting motions that previously appeared before the Council? If so, what should those restrictions be and are there any exceptions? Thank-you. Jonathan From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: 20 December 2012 18:08 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task All, from today's council call the task attached was shifted to the SCI. Looking forward to meeting you later Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.

Dear all, First, allow me to wish everyone a healthy, happy and abundant 2013! Jonathan/Jeff: Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the SCI. To get all of the SCI members up to speed on what is being discussed, could you kindly provide us with some background information vis-à-vis what the specific motion was, and what caused it to come back to the Council in (as I understand it) virtually the same wording? That will be helpful for our discussion. Jeff: By way of this email, I am asking staff (pursuant to the SCI Charter) to add your email address to the discussion list until this matter has been fully explored and a recommendation has been sent back to Council. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. _____ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 5:50 AM To: KnobenW@telekom.de; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff' Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task All, Jeff Neuman raised a point on the GNSO Council list that the question being posed to the SCI should be a simpler one focussed on the general principle not the specific item that caused us to question the principle. I am in agreement with this. Therefore my suggestion is that the SCI focus on the essential question i.e. under what circumstances is it acceptable / permissible for a motion to be submitted to the GNSO Council when such a motion is identical to one that has been previously voted down by the Council. Jeff put it well and I am support of his formulation of the question as follows. The question should simply be "should there be any restrictions on resubmitting motions that previously appeared before the Council? If so, what should those restrictions be and are there any exceptions? Thank-you. Jonathan From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: 20 December 2012 18:08 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task All, from today's council call the task attached was shifted to the SCI. Looking forward to meeting you later Wolf-Ulrich

Thank you, Glen. RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. _____ From: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 1:13 PM To: Ron Andruff; 'Jonathan Robinson'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff' Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Dear Jeff, You have been been added to the SCI mailing list gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org with public archives at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/ Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org De : owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] De la part de Ron Andruff Envoyé : mercredi 2 janvier 2013 18:20 À : 'Jonathan Robinson'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Cc : 'Neuman, Jeff' Objet : RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Dear all, First, allow me to wish everyone a healthy, happy and abundant 2013! Jonathan/Jeff: Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the SCI. To get all of the SCI members up to speed on what is being discussed, could you kindly provide us with some background information vis-à-vis what the specific motion was, and what caused it to come back to the Council in (as I understand it) virtually the same wording? That will be helpful for our discussion. Jeff: By way of this email, I am asking staff (pursuant to the SCI Charter) to add your email address to the discussion list until this matter has been fully explored and a recommendation has been sent back to Council. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. _____ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 5:50 AM To: KnobenW@telekom.de; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff' Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task All, Jeff Neuman raised a point on the GNSO Council list that the question being posed to the SCI should be a simpler one focussed on the general principle not the specific item that caused us to question the principle. I am in agreement with this. Therefore my suggestion is that the SCI focus on the essential question i.e. under what circumstances is it acceptable / permissible for a motion to be submitted to the GNSO Council when such a motion is identical to one that has been previously voted down by the Council. Jeff put it well and I am support of his formulation of the question as follows. The question should simply be "should there be any restrictions on resubmitting motions that previously appeared before the Council? If so, what should those restrictions be and are there any exceptions? Thank-you. Jonathan From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: 20 December 2012 18:08 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task All, from today's council call the task attached was shifted to the SCI. Looking forward to meeting you later Wolf-Ulrich