ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Recommendations Report to the Board - IRTP Part B Recommendation #9 part 2

  • To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Recommendations Report to the Board - IRTP Part B Recommendation #9 part 2
  • From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 09:56:42 +0100
  • In-reply-to: <CB51545E.21C8D%marika.konings@icann.org>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <CB51545E.21C8D%marika.konings@icann.org>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thanks Marika.

All, the Council currently does not have a procedure in place to handle items 
as part of a consent agenda.

I'd like to propose such a simplified consent procedure to the Council. What I 
have in mind is something very similar to what the Board does, where an initial 
agenda item would be a consent agenda. I would propose that we apply the 
simplest threshold to such items which would be a majority of each house. That 
they be considered only once (i.e. if not approved then simply rejected). That 
there be no possibility of a deferral (like we have with motions). And that if 
anyone objects to an item being on the consent agenda, that Councillors can say 
so and the item is then simply moved to the main agenda. The idea being that 
consent agenda items are supposed to be simple and straightforward.

I have drafted the agenda for our next meeting with this in mind, implementing 
the following changes:

- moving the Pending Project List item into the admin item 1, as I think this 
still needs to be looked at by the Council at every meeting.
- I have left the standard item 2 in there, but this now becomes a consent 
agenda item.

Is there any objection to this?


Le 3 févr. 2012 à 09:07, Marika Konings a écrit :

> Dear All,
> Per the new GNSO Policy Development Process, the GNSO Council needs to 
> approve the Recommendations Report to the Board (which has replaced the 
> Council Report to the Board in the old PDP) before it is submitted to the 
> ICANN Board for its consideration. Following the adoption of IRTP Part B 
> Recommendation #9 part 2 and the ICANN Staff proposal, we have prepared the 
> attached Recommendations Report for your consideration. Please note that this 
> report does not contain any new information, but aims to provide an overview 
> of all the relevant information in order for the Board to take an informed 
> decision. As the new PDP does not prescribe how such a Recommendations Report 
> should be structured, we would also like to take this opportunity to ask your 
> input on the elements the Recommendations Report should contain so this can 
> be turned into a template which can be used for future Recommendations 
> Reports. For your information, you will find the relevant section of the PDP 
> Manual relating to the Recommendations Report below.
> With best regards,
> Marika
> ===================
> From the PDP Manual
> 13. Preparation of the Board Report
> If the PDP Recommendations contained in the Final Report are approved by the 
> GNSO Council, the GNSO Council may designate a person or group responsible 
> for drafting a Recommendations Report to the Board. If feasible, the 
> Recommendations Report to the Board should be submitted to the Board in time 
> for consideration at the next GNSO Council meeting following adoption of the 
> Final Report. Staff should inform the GNSO Council from time to time of the 
> format requested by the Board. These GNSO Council Reports supplement any 
> Staff Reports that may highlight any legal, implementability, financial, and 
> other operational concerns related to the PDP recommendations contained in 
> the Final Report. In order to enhance ICANN’s accountability and 
> transparency, Staff is encouraged to publish its Staff Reports with minimal 
> redactions wherever possible, without jeopardizing information that may be 
> protected under attorney/client or other legal privileges. 
> <Recommendations Report - IRTP Part B Rec #9 part 2 - 3 February 2012.doc>

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>