[PC-NCSG] Fwd: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Consensus Call by 08 Jan 2014 on Resubmitting a Motion

[marie-laure Lemineur]

Dear all,

The email below refers to a specific issue we are dealing with in the
Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation also known as SCI.  At
this stage we, members of the SCI, are suppose to approve the final version
of the language of  the operating procedure about the resubmission of a
GNSO motion.

I just have asked the SCI Chair during our earlier call if there was a
 standard procedure when the SCI members have to approve a particular
language, on  how  each constituency and SG rep should consult its
respective members in order to be able to approve what the SCI works on and
proposes? In summary, the answer I received has been that each community
organizes itself as it pleases and in accordance with it charter.

I believe we never has the opportunity to discuss this internally as a
constituency, thus this would be a good moment to do so and to officially
establish an NPOC  mechanism or a rule regarding how, each time the NPOC
representative  in the SCI will be asked to agree upon a reformed
procedural GNSO rule,  he or she should be consulting back NPOC membership
 for approval ?

Thus, what do you think should be the proper mechanism ? Do you reckon it
should be taken to the EC, to the policy committee or to our full
membership for approval?   And then, once send for approval, if there is no
objection or no response (silence),  shall it be interpreted as approved ?

I would appreciate your ideas, opinion and comments so that we can take a
decision.

Additionally, while we decide upon which mechanism we prefer to use, we
also need to approve the language of the text I am forwarding and that all
SCI members are required to approve it by January 8th at the latest,
otherwise it will be  presumed to have been be accepted by full consensus.

Please also bear in mind that the SCI deals with procedural key issues
within the GNSO. To provide a clearer idea about the SCI work, to those who
are not familiar with its mandate, the kind of items we are working on at
the moment are  the procedure for re-submitting a motion as illustrated
below, the establishment of a waiver mechanism for the GNSO Chair to be
able to  waive procedural rules, a procedure for Councilors to be able to
use the electronic voting, etc.  To those of  you who wish to have more
information about the SCI,  please click on

https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/Home


Thank you very much,

Best,

Marie-laure

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
Date: Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:22 PM
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Consensus Call by 08 Jan 2014 on
Resubmitting a Motion
To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>


Dear SCI members,

Note that per the SCI Charter, "Unless otherwise determined by the SCI
members, committee decisions will be made by ?full consensus? process as
described in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (see section 3.6)."  Thus,
as agreed at the SCI meeting today, staff is requesting a consensus call on
the language provided by Greg Shatan concerning changes to the GNSO Council
Operating Procedures on resubmitting a motion.  Please see the attached
redlined and clean versions of the language.  Please review this language
in your Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups if you have not already done
so.

*If there are no objections or changes to the language received by
Wednesday, 08 January 2014, the language will be presumed to be accepted by
full consensus.*

If the language is approved the next step will be for staff to prepare a
redlined version of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures that will be put
out for public comment for 21 days.  However, as noted on today's call this
may be combined with changes to the GNSO Working Group Guidelines relating
to the working group self-assessment survey (as being prepared by Ken Bour).

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131217/03ba41a1/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Addressing the Resubmission of a Motion.DOCX
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 40682 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131217/03ba41a1/attachment-0002.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Addressing the Resubmission of a Motion - Addressing the Resubmission of a Motion.DOCX
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 30492 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131217/03ba41a1/attachment-0003.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5041 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131217/03ba41a1/attachment-0001.p7s>