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

Wed Jan 8 18:55:12 EET 2014

Dear Cintra,

My response below in between the lines in blue. Looking forward to
additional inputs from the rest of the EC.

best,
mll

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Cintra Sooknanan <cintra.sooknanan at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Dear Marie-laure,
>
> I am in the process of reviewing the documents, thank you for forwarding.
>
> With regard to your question on consensus I believe that if NPOC has
> appointed a liaison or primary representative then this person should given
> flexibility to deal and respond to procedural/operational matters relating
> to that role/WG.AGREED
>

> In the case of drafting and policy issues then this should be taken to the
> Excom or policy committee as relevant. If the matter relates to drafting or
> policy issues that affect the running and charter of the NCSG and NPOC then
> I believe this should be taken to the NPOC Voice list for discussion.
> AGREED ALSO. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT SCI DO MOSTLY DEAL WITH PROCEDURAL
> MATTERS. ANYHOW, IN CASE THERE IS A MATTER DEALT WITH THAT SHOULD AFFECT
> OUR CHARTER WE COULD AGREE TO TAKE IT TO OUR MEMBERSHIP. IS THERE ANY
> OBJECTIONS TO THIS?
>
> I do believe that in all cases there should be periodic updates on the
> Policy Committee and NPOC Calls as required. AGREED
>
> Looking forward to other thoughts on this matter as it is important for us
> to determine how we can effectively operate given the current fluid IG
> environment. ANY ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS FROM THE REST OF THE EC ?
>
> Regards
>
> Cintra Sooknanan
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:58 PM, marie-laure Lemineur <
> mllemineur at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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/20140108/d4d66e3e/attachment.html>