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

[Deedee Halleck]

I agree....bureaucratic....but our problems are more basic.
The stronger the principle, the easier to fulfill.  The problem with "multistakeholder" is that the principle doesn't take power into account.
deedee
Sent by notsosmart fone

On Apr 8, 2013, at 12:11 AM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:

> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss