RE: [council] Motions for 17 Dec Council Meeting

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

For motion 3 it makes sense to make an exception and delay a vote the
PDP. We just received the Issues Report so it seems premature to be
voting on a PDP, or at least to do it well informed. On the other hand,
not sure why we need a motion to decide not to make a motion.

Motion 4 is not critical and I see no reason to make a quick judgement
call on that, especially when it has far reaching affects that we should
seriously consider/discuss. I don't support making an exception for this
one.

For motion 2, I know we are already past the date that the Board has
asked for a response, but we are getting into the Holiday season and I
doubt much attention would be would be given to the STI proposal until
after the New Year even if we approve/accept it this week. Also, is it
appropriate to vote on it until it is complete with the minority reports
added?

Tim
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] Motions for 17 Dec Council Meeting
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, December 14, 2009 8:27 am
To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "GNSO Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Strephane,
 
We did not receive the Issues Report for motion 3 until Friday, 11
December, which was after the deadline for documents, a different
Council Procedures requirement.  I should have made that more clear.
 
This discussion brings something else to mind that would be good to do
going forward: We should make sure that the dates motions are submitted
are always shown with the motions on the wiki and anywhere else they are
posted.  In checking the motions for this week's meeting, I see that we
do that in some cases and not others.
 
Glen - In the future, I suggest that we make it a practice to always
show the date a motion was made after the name of the person who made
the motion.
 
Chuck

From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 9:13 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: GNSO Council
Subject: Re: [council] Motions for 17 Dec Council Meeting



Thanks Chuck, 

I don't understand why that requirement applies to motion 3, which you
made on Dec 4, therefore well inside the 8-day requirement by my count.


On motion 2, I am in the same boat as you (overwhelmed by emails) and
cannot find the original motion proposal (which I take it was made by
staff, since it is not even moved yet). Do you have a record of what
date that was?


Thanks,


Stéphane

Le 14 déc. 2009 à 15:02, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :

Thanks for the correction Stephane.  Not sure how I missed your second
of motion 3.
 
Regarding the Council Operating Procedures requirement that motions
should be submitted 8 days prior to a Council meeting, that requirement
would apply to motion 2, motion 3 and motion 4.  In all three cases the
Coucil would need to agree to an exception to the procedures requirement
or we will have to delay action on all three topics.
 
Chuck

From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 8:43 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: GNSO Council
Subject: Re: [council] Motions for 17 Dec Council Meeting



Hi Chuck, 

Your description is incorrect. I had seconded motion 3 on December 6.


Further, it is my assessment of the 8 day notice requirement set out by
article 3.3 of the GNSO operating rules and procedures that motion 4,
proposed by Wolf on Dec 13, cannot be submitted for our Dec 17 meeting.


I am happy to be corrected if this assessment is wrong.


Thanks,


Stéphane

Le 13 déc. 2009 à 14:22, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :

For our 17 Dec Council meeting, the following four motions listed below
with their status are posted at
https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?17_december_motions):

+ Motion To Approve Tool Kit of Services Recommendations for GNSO
Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups (amended 4 Dec 09) - moved &
seconded 
+ Motion to Approve the Alternative Proposal recommended by the Special
Trademark Issues Review Team - needs to be moved and seconded 
+ Motion to delay decision regarding initiation of a Vertical
Integration PDP - needs to be seconded 
+ Proposed Motion on Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting -
needs to be seconded

At this point, only motion 1 above is ready for action.  So we need
someone to make motion 2 and, if that happens, we will need a second. 
We also need seconds on motions 3 & 4. 
 
Chuck