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

[Pranesh Prakash]

Alternative 2 seems far too bureaucratic and involved.  However, given
that Alternative 1 seems to lack even basic accountability (having to
provide a reasoned decision, for instance), I would have to reluctantly
go with *Alternative 2*

Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [2013-04-07 15:22]:
> 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


-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director
Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20130408/d640900b/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss