[NCUC-DISCUSS] [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Consensus Call: Current Practice in Relation to Motions

[Renata Aquino Ribeiro]

Hi Amr

I also see nothing which could immediately bar these current
procedures from being approved.
The CSCG has discussed recently procedures to second candidacies and
the idea of non-public endorsements was being analysed but I find that
seconding motions is a totally different procedure and is already
covered well enough in these draft procedures.

Best,

Renata

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:01 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> Yes, I certainly agree. There is one addition to the current procedures that I should probably highlight. It isn’t really a big thing, but the suggested language indicates that unless a motion on a Council meeting is seconded, it would not be discussed. Note that seconding a motion has no deadline, so can be done up until the motion is actually being discussed during the Council meeting.
>
> This may have actually been the case in the past, but I do not recall there ever being a situation where no councillor would agree to second a motion, and these procedures haven’t been documented until now, so I can’t be sure one way or the other. :)
>
> On a personal note, I was hopeful that a change in the procedures would happen as a result of the SCI deliberations. What I asked the SCI to consider was setting a deadline by which amendments to motions could be considered (I was thinking something along a 48-hours before a Council meeting deadline). This was mainly because I’ve found some last minute suggested amendments to Council motions to not be so friendly in the past. In those situations, I would prefer that the Councillor have the ability and time to get back to the NCSG (or whatever SG/C) to discuss any amendments. For several reasons, this suggestion proved to be complicated.
>
> Anyway…, I plan on voting in favour of these recommendations unless instructed to do otherwise by the NCUC. I will note that SCI recommendations require a full consensus of the committee’s primary members/reps.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Apr 21, 2016, at 1:15 PM, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
>>
>> I think reflecting what is pretty standard procedure in the record is a good thing, I would support adopting this. In these things it can be good to have a hard rule to fallback on in cases where there may be ambiguity.
>>
>> -James
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 21/04/2016, 11:19, "Ncuc-discuss on behalf of Amr Elsadr" <ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org on behalf of aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi again,
>>>
>>> I thought that I would add the suggested procedures for seconding of motions and making amendments here are pretty much what the GNSO Council has been using. They are just being formalised. So I guess what I’m asking is…, does anyone think that a change in the standing procedure is desirable?
>>>
>>> I have asked for an extension to the deadline of the consensus call (to Monday April 25th). There’s no guarantee that my request will be granted, but I would appreciate thoughts anyway, if anybody has them.
>>>
>>> Thanks again.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>>> On Apr 21, 2016, at 12:08 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I’m sending this email as an update to some of the ongoing work on the GNSO’s Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI). One of the ongoing projects the SCI is working on is formalising the procedures to second motions submitted to the GNSO Council, as well as the procedures to suggest friendly amendments. These two items (seconding of motions and suggesting amendments to them) are not codified in the GNSO operating procedures in any way, but should be soon as a result of the work that the SCI was asked to do by the GNSO Council.
>>>>
>>>> I was wondering if anybody has any thoughts on this. Feedback would be helpful, particularly from current and former GNSO Councillors. This is a discussion purely on Council procedure (no policy stuff here today), but getting the processes right is important when so many of members are using GNSO processes to further the goals of the non-commercial community within the gTLD policy context.
>>>>
>>>> You will notice that this email should have been forwarded to this list two-weeks ago. My fault for the very late delivery, and I ask for forgiveness. I had been offline for quite some time, and have been doing my best to catch up since getting back.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Amr
>>>>
>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
>>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Consensus Call: Current Practice in Relation to Motions
>>>>> Date: April 7, 2016 at 11:26:22 PM GMT+2
>>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear SCI members,
>>>>>
>>>>> As agreed on the SCI call on 07 April, the attached document, CONSENSUS CALL-GNSO Operating Procedures Proposed Revision Relating to Motions & Amendments 07 April 2016, is being circulated for a formal Consensus Call.  The document is the proposed revision to the GNSO Operating Procedures to include the new text on submitting, seconding, and amending motions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Background:
>>>>>    • On 05 March 2015 the SCI submitted to the GNSO Council a Review Request (see attached) concerning the fact that there are currently no formal procedures on (i) whether, how and by whom a properly submitted motion is to be seconded, and (ii) treatment of proposed amendments to such motions as either “friendly” or “unfriendly”.    The Review Request was one of two that the Council approved at its meeting on 16 April 2015. In the attached Review Request the GNSO Council asked that the SCI codify the existing customary practices of the GNSO Council and consider new processes to govern the seconding of motions and amendments to motions.
>>>>>    • On 09 October 2015 the SCI agreed on a documentation of the Current Practice Relating to Motions and sent a letter (attached) along with the original Review Request and the documentation to Jonathan Robinson, GNSO Council Chair.
>>>>>    • In December 2015 the SCI established a Sub Team A — Sara Bockey, Angie Graves, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, and Lawrence Olawale-Roberts, and Rudi Vansnick — to review the current practice and the Sub Team submitted its recommendations to the SCI on 02 March 2016.  The SCI discussed the recommendations in Marrakech on 05 March and asked staff to draft revisions to the GNSO Operating Procedures per the recommendations.
>>>>>    • On 07 April the SCI discussed the draft revisions and asked staff to submit them to the SCI for a Consensus Call.
>>>>> If there are no objections or changes received in two weeks by Thursday 21 April, the language will be presumed to be accepted by Full Consensus.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Julie
>>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> <CONSENSUS CALL-GNSO Operating Procedures Proposed Revision Relating to Motions & Amendments 07 April 2016.docx>
>>>> <CONSENSUS CALL-GNSO Operating Procedures Proposed Revision Relating to Motions & Amendments 07 April 2016.pdf>
>>>> <SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Concerning Current Practice in Relation to Motions 09 Oct 2015.pdf>
>>>> <SCI Review Request - Motions - 5 Mar 2015 v2.pdf>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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