<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Motion and document deadlines added to GNSO calendar
- To: "GNSO Council " <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] Motion and document deadlines added to GNSO calendar
- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 12:35:30 -0700
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Reply-to: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Web-Based Email 5.3.05
<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt;"><div>Personally, Yes and Yes. The Councilors represent their
SG/Cs. In some cases that may be able to be done on shorter notice - a well
known/worn issue being revisited for example, or a motion of thanks and/or
appreciation. In some cases Councilors may be able to vet something
sufficiently on Constituency day prior to the GNSO meeting.<BR></div>
<div>I am not talking about amendments, or even alternate motions in some
cases. If the original motion has been on the table long enough, the Councilors
often have a good enough sense of their SG/C to feel comfortable taking
action.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Right now, we allow anyone to ask that a motion be deferred at least
once. The result is that it actually goes on longer that it would if we
required a 14 day window prior to the meeting, and often to others it
makes those asking for deferment look like they are at
best procrastinators and at worse trying to block progress.</div>
<div><BR></div>
<div>Tim </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=replyBlockquote style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY:
verdana" webmail="1">
<DIV id=wmQuoteWrapper>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: Re:
[council] Motion and document deadlines added to GNSO<BR>calendar<BR>From:
Stéphane_Van_Gelder <<a
href="mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx";>stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx</a>><BR>Date:
Thu, January 20, 2011 1:12 pm<BR>To: "Tim Ruiz" <<a
href="mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx";>tim@xxxxxxxxxxx</a>><BR>Cc: "Margie Milam"
<<a href="mailto:Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx";>Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx</a>>,
"GNSO Council"<BR><<a
href="mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><BR><BR>As a
reminder, the suggestion is to extend the deadline for motions prior to an Open
Council meeting only.<BR><BR>Are you saying you believe the Council should
never consider "fresh" motions at these meetings? If so, is the rationale that
the ICANN meeting week is too time intensive to give people time to properly
consider motions?<BR><BR>Stéphane<BR><BR>Le 20 janv. 2011 à 19:18, Tim Ruiz a
écrit :<BR><BR>> <BR>> Personally, I believe no motion should be
considered at the meeting<BR>> immediately following when it is made. It
should almost always wait<BR>> until the following one. BUT, if one is going
to be considered at the<BR>> very next meeting after it is made, the Council
should have had at least<BR>> 14 days to consider and vet it.<BR>>
<BR>> Tim <BR>> <BR>> -------- Original Message --------<BR>>
Subject: RE: [council] Motion and document deadlines added to GNSO<BR>>
calendar<BR>> From: Margie Milam <<a
href="mailto:Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx";>Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx</a>><BR>>
Date: Thu, January 20, 2011 10:59 am<BR>> To: Tim Ruiz <<a
href="mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx";>tim@xxxxxxxxxxx</a>>, GNSO Council <<a
href="mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><BR>>
<BR>> Hi Tim,<BR>> <BR>> The GNSO Council meets approximately every 3
weeks. If a 14 day rule is<BR>> applied, motions would need to be brought
during the one week period<BR>> after the last GNSO Council meeting. Would
that leave enough time for<BR>> dialogue between meetings among councilors
and allow for sufficient<BR>> consultations with their respective
SG/C's?<BR>> <BR>> Margie<BR>> <BR>> -----Original
Message-----<BR>> From: <a
href="mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a> [<a
href="mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>]<BR>>
On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz<BR>> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 3:26
PM<BR>> To: GNSO Council<BR>> Subject: RE: [council] Motion and document
deadlines added to GNSO<BR>> calendar<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> This is
basically 13-14 days. Why not just make it 14 days prior to a<BR>> meeting.
Then we don't have to worry about changes in the way ICANN<BR>> schedules
its meetings, and it's simpler to understand.<BR>> <BR>> Would a motion
to change that be sufficient, or is more needed?<BR>> <BR>> Tim <BR>>
<BR>> -------- Original Message --------<BR>> Subject: Re: [council]
Motion and document deadlines added to GNSO<BR>> calendar<BR>> From:
Stéphane_Van_Gelder <<a
href="mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx";>stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx</a>><BR>>
Date: Wed, January 19, 2011 8:29 am<BR>> To: "Neuman, Jeff" <<a
href="mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx";>Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx</a>><BR>> Cc:
GNSO Council <<a
href="mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> I like it. Others?<BR>> <BR>> Stéphane<BR>> <BR>>
Le 18 janv. 2011 à 16:00, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :<BR>> <BR>>> One idea
that some have had is to make the motions deadline before an ICANN meeting 8
days prior to the weekend session as opposed to 8 days prior to the Council
meeting. This would give ample time to discuss the motions during the weekend
and during constituency/stakeholder day. This would make the motions deadline
March 4th as opposed to March 8th (if my math is correct).<BR>>>
<BR>>> Should we try that for this next meeting to test it out and see if
that works?<BR>>> <BR>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman<BR>>> Neustar,
Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy<BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>>
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original
message.<BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>> -----Original
Message-----<BR>>> From: <a
href="mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>
<BR>>> [<a
href="mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>]
On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder<BR>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011
9:44 AM<BR>>> To: GNSO Council<BR>>> Subject: [council] Motion and
document deadlines added to GNSO <BR>>> calendar<BR>>> <BR>>>
<BR>>> Councillors,<BR>>> <BR>>> FYI, following a suggestion
from Jeff on our last Council Leaders' call, we have looked at adding the
deadline for submitting motions and documents on our master
calendar.<BR>>> <BR>>> The idea is, as the meetings tend to roll
into each other and it's easy to loose sight of deadlines, to give us better
clarity about when motions need to be submitted.<BR>>> <BR>>> Glen
has implemented this idea and you can see the result on the calendar page (<a
href="http://gnso.icann.org/calendar#jan";>http://gnso.icann.org/calendar#jan</a>):
next deadline is shown on Jan 29.<BR>>> <BR>>> I hope this is
useful to everyone.<BR>>> <BR>>> Thanks,<BR>>> <BR>>>
Stéphane<BR>>> <BR>>> P.S.: There was talk in Cartagena of
lengthening motion deadlines before a Public Council meeting. Is there still an
interest in looking at this?<BR>> <BR>>
<BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></span></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|