Dear Jacqueline, To further clarify our position, we want to explain the nature of what is a point of order. The UNGA Rules of Procedure, in particular, Article 79 of Annex IV (a) of the Rules of the General Assembly, gives a concept of what a point of order: 79. The Special Committee recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of the following text as a description of the concept of a point of order [para. 229]: *_"(a) A point of order is basically an intervention directed to the presiding officer, requesting him to make use of some power inherent in his office or specifically given him under the rules of procedure_*. It may, for example, relate to the manner in which the debate is conducted, to the maintenance of order, to the observance of the rules of procedure or to the way in which presiding officers exercise the powers conferred upon them by the rules. Under a point of order, a representative may request the presiding officer to apply a certain rule of procedure or he may question the way in which the officer applies the rule. Thus, within the scope of the rules of procedure, representatives are enabled to direct the attention of the presiding officer to violations or misapplications of the rules by other representatives or by the presiding officer himself. A point of order has precedence over any other matter, including procedural motions (rules 73 [114] [Rule 71 [113] of the present rules of procedure] and 79 [120] [Rule 77 [119] of the present rules of procedure]). "(b) Points of order raised under rule 73 [114]n involve questions necessitating a ruling by the presiding officer, subject to possible appeal. *They are therefore distinct from the procedural motions provided for in rules 76*[117] [Rule 74 [116] of the present rules of procedure] to 79 [120]o which can be decided only by a vote and on which more than one motion may be entertained at the same time, rule 79 [120]o laying down the precedence of such motions. *_They are also distinct from requests for information or clarification, or from remarks relating to material arrangements (seating, interpretation system, temperature of the room), documents, translations, etc., which - while they may have to be dealt with by the presiding officer - do not require rulings from him. However, in established United Nations practice, a representative intending to submit a procedural motion or to seek information or clarification often rises to 'a point of order' as a means of obtaining the floor. The latter usage, which is based on practical grounds, should not be confused with the raising of points of order under rule 73 [114]_*. If Mr. Samuels' request is reviewed, it can be observed that the request it is not directed to the President ‘/requesting him to make use of some power inherent in his office or specifically given him under the rules of procedure/', but he requests ‘/That the general assembly demonstrate its lack of confidence in the LACRALO leadership and vote on this motion/’. In simple terms, what Mr. Samuels says is a point of order, it's really not. It is therefore not possible to give such treatment. Regards El 10/09/2015 a las 13:15, Jacqueline Morris escribió:
Hi
I don't think you understood my question. A motion was raised on a Point of Order. The rules that you just quoted say that this needs to be dealt with immediately, I think this means that we have to (if we were in a physical meeting, we would stop, discuss, get a ruling, appeal, vote .. Before continuing on what we were doing - the original vote) focus on this, because if the motion on the Point of Order passes, the process that we are in will be judged illegitimate and will have to end. So I really think that we, in order to be correct, need to deal with Carlton's motion before the election process ends. If translation etc are making it take too long, then yes, we need to suspend or extend. I don't think a suspension needs to be requested per we, but in order for things to run properly, in official order, this may have to happen.