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

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi,

I don't personally see alternative #2 being too "bureaucratic". In the context Mary described, I don't believe the motion should have been resubmitted at all (and don't think it's a good idea in principle). An IPC/CSG councillor who abstained, citing a conflict of interest being his reason, wanted to change his vote on a motion after the vote didn't go his way. If I recall correctly, he did not ask for the motion to be resubmitted immediately after the vote, but as the meeting was closing after some of the NCSG councillors had already left the call.

I'm not sure why an elected councillor would have a conflict of interest with a council motion, but I do believe that if the council is going to allow for motions to be resubmitted, certain protections should be made to ensure that all councillors have their say in it. The process in alternative #2 would have allowed a councillor to request the resubmitted motion to be taken off the consent agenda, as the reason provided does not justify a resubmission…, assuming the requestor had seconders from each house in the first place.

I can't think of reasons why motions should be resubmitted in principle. Councillors should attend meetings (or assign proxies) clearly knowing how they are going to vote on motions. If there are plausible reasons I am not aware of, please…, enlighten me. If not, I would hope the decision and process to resubmit a motion would not be made easy enough to do on a whim.

Thanks.

Amr

On Apr 8, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Deedee Halleck <deedeehalleck at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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

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