[NCUC-DISCUSS] Input requested by GNSO Standing Committee on Improvements

[Milton L Mueller]

I like Alternative 2
--MM
From: ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org [mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org] On Behalf Of Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu
Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 5:52 AM
To: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Input requested by GNSO Standing Committee on Improvements


Dear NCUC members,


I'm resending the email below, as the Standing Committee on Improvements (SCI) would like to complete its work on this issue and send its recommendation on to the GNSO Council for their approval. Please let me know if you have comments or questions by 21 April. Thanks!


Mary


Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Faculty Chair, Global IP Partnerships
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu<mailto:mary.wong at law.unh.edu>
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php


>>>

From:


Mary Wong


To:


NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>


Date:


3/20/2013 11:47 PM


Subject:


Input requested by GNSO Standing Committee on Improvements


Hi all - I thought I had sent the request below but cannot seem to locate it so I apologize if I did not. The GNSO's Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements (SCI) is requesting SG and constituency feedback on a proposal for dealing with whether, when and how a motion may be re-submitted for re-voting to the GNSO Council. The proposal follows, as does a brief explanation of why this is an issue.



Alternative #1.  Leave up to discretion of the Chair

OR

Alternative #2.  Comply with ALL the following criteria, in this order:



(1)  Re-submitting Councilor must provide reasoning to justify the resubmission of a motion, no later than the usual deadline for submitting an original motion --  8 days prior to  the next GNSO Council meeting.

(2)  The text of the re-submitted motion must be published, no later than the usual deadline for submitting an original motion --  8 days prior to  the next GNSO Council meeting.

(3)  The re-submitted motion must have a seconder from each house as a prerequisite for placing the issue of whether the Council will even accept a re-submission on the consent agenda at the next GNSO Council meeting.

(4)  Any Councilor can ask for the acceptance of re-submission to be taken off the consent agenda -- in which case the question whether or not the re-submission should even be accepted goes automatically to a Council vote on whether to accept the re-submission.NOTE: all this is just to decide if the act of re-submission itself is accepted -- the actual substance of the motion does not get discussed, or put to a vote, until such acceptance has taken place.CONTEXT:At a recent Council meeting, a motion was voted on and defeated because two Councilors abstained without realizing that an abstention under the GNSO Council rules is automatically deemed to be a No vote. The question then became whether the motion could be re-submitted and re-voted on, at which point it became clear that the GNSO Council rules and procedures do NOT currently have a process in place to deal with the question. The SCI was therefore asked to look at the issue and recommend such a process.Thanks and cheersMary

Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Faculty Chair, Global IP Partnerships
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu<mailto:mary.wong at law.unh.edu>
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20130408/4cdadaf5/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss