RE: [council] Draft motions on Registration Abuse Policy

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I know we should expect a motion after an issues report is released, but
the actual substance/wording of the motion can be an issue with various
nuances, inflections, and concerns over meaning, etc. I will keep in
mind that we can ask to postpone to next meeting if necessary. Thanks
for reminding me about that.

Tim 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] Draft motions on Registration Abuse Policy
From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, December 12, 2008 1:46 pm
To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


Hi,

One of the other practices we have had, this is mostly for the new 
people have joined the council recently, is the practice of delaying a 
vote by one meeting if a constituency said it needed more time. I try 
not to delay things unnecessarily, but I know that the schedules of 
constituency meetings do not always mesh well with the schedule of 
Council meetings, So even 3 weeks may not be enough, though 6 will be 
in most cases. This is even more an issue when holidays are involved 
in the intervening time.

In general the guideline I try to follow is to schedule a vote on a 
PDP at the meeting after the issues report has been introduced to the 
council with an overview by the staff. This is generally at least 4 
weeks after the report has been released.

Everyone knows that we have been 'ignoring' the strict time 
considerations in the PDP rules. I have, however, been trying to 
follow a fairly consistent set of guidelines though these have evolved 
over time. I should probably write these up for the PPSC so the 
issues they bring out, if not the guidelines themselves, can be 
considered as part of the discussion.

In terms of the motions submitted less then 7 days in advance of the 
meeting, I apologize for my part in being a day late with the motions 
for Registration Abuse Policy. If the constituencies are not ready to 
vote at this meeting because of that delay I will understand, though 
the bylaws required vote on whether we do a PDP or not is a rather 
automatic motion that can be expected anytime 15 days after an issues 
report is released (not that we ever vote that soon). In terms of the 
motion for establishing a Drafting Team to work on a solution, that is 
often something we do without a long lead wen we find a subject that 
needs some focused work before the Council considers an issue.

We certainly should make sure your concern for adequate constituency 
time to consider issues is taken into account by the PPSC. What I 
think we need to do is find the right balance between sufficient time 
and timeliness - which is not a necessarily trivial issue.

thanks

a.


On 12 Dec 2008, at 12:26, Tim Ruiz wrote:

>> The GNSO Council members will consult with their constituencies
>> in preparation for a vote on a PDP and other possible motions at
>> the Council meeting on 8 January.
>
> Thank you Avri. The problem with motions like the ones flying around
> here in the last day and a half (less than 7 days before our 
> meeting) is
> the Council is not like the Board (no matter what some like to claim).
> The Councilors represent their constituents and need time to consult
> with them on various issues and decisions before voting. Even seven 
> days
> is really cutting it short.
>
> Hopefully the PPSC PDP Team will take this into account and require -
> without exception - a reasonable notice period for motions that allows
> for constituency consultation. Once Councilors have a good handle on 
> the
> views of their constituents regarding a particular motion, they will 
> be
> in a much better position to *negotiate* necessary amendments that
> address the needs/concerms of their constituents and can vote in a 
> more
> informed manner.
>
> Tim