RE: [council] Motion deadline per operating procedures

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

Not surprisingly, I believe the Operating Procedures indicate that's not what 
the GCOT meant.  The GCOT used hours, not days, in other sections (see 4.4.2 
and 7.2.2).  If they had wanted to use hours for this one, they could have. 
They didn't.   
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 3:12 PM
To: Gomes,Chuck
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Motion deadline per operating procedures


Interesting how we pick what we are going to adhere to process wise (certain 
requests to assign proxies a while back for example) and what we don't. I 
maintain that a day is a day (24 hours) and that is exactly what the GCOT 
meant. Regarding what we did in the past, it is just that, the past (two wrongs 
don't make a right and all that nonsense). Popping motions in the mix at the 
11th hour is becoming the norm, not  the exception. If the Council votes to 
make an exception on these two motions then I guess that's the way it is. But 
questioning what a "day"
means is a rediculous argument. These motions did not meet the deadline and I 
maintain that any exception requires a vote.

If the GCOT meant something else then I would like that explained by them and I 
would propose that we pull back the procedures in whole to have them all 
reviewed to be sure we don't have any other convenient interpretations pop up 
unexpectedly.


Tim 
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] Motion deadline per operating procedures
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, December 01, 2010 1:52 pm
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Tim,
 
My guess is,  if we took a survey of Councilors, many would not interpret days 
so literally as you do and I suspect that the GCOT didn't mean it that 
literally either.  But I will point out that Glen sent a message reminding 
Councilors of the 8-day advance requirement and noted that motions were due by 
30 November.  Glen did that at my request and as you can tell, I have never 
interpreted the requirement as 192 hours.  If it means 192 hours, then I 
suspect that we have missed the deadline many times in the past.
 
Regardless, I still maintain that we should spend our time focusing on the 
issues not the process, especially when we are talking about something where we 
clearly had different understandings regarding the deadline.
 
Chuck
 
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 12:00 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Motion deadline per operating procedures


 
The relevant paragraph in section 3.3 of our operating procedures clearly 
states that motions must be submitted "...no later than 8 days before the GNSO 
Council meeting." Given that our meeting is scheduled to begin at 1900 UTC on 
the 8th, neither of the motions submitted yesterday by Mary and Kristina met 
the deadline of 1900 UTC the 30th.

Again, given that ICANN involves one or more days of travel for many of us, and 
that any 8 day period also includes at least one weekend, I think it is crucial 
that motions are submitted as soon as possible and the deadline should be 
strictly observed.

Tim