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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks John.

Stéphane



Le 6 févr. 2012 à 19:19, <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> No objection from me.
> 
> Berard
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] Recommendations Report to the Board - IRTP Part
> B Recommendation #9 part 2
> From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, February 06, 2012 12:56 am
> To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
> Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 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?
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 
> 
> 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>
>