RE: [council] Fw: GNSO Review WP Feasibility&Prioritization Motion

["Paul McGrady \(Policy\)" <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I support WU’s request.  The purpose of the withdrawal was to give us all time 
to review it and discuss it with our stakeholders.  I don’t think it’s helpful 
for us to delay this another month on a procedural ground.

 

Best,

Paul

 

 

Paul McGrady

policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

+1-312-882-5020

GNSO Councilor for the IPC

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of WUKnoben
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 09:25 AM
To: GNSO council
Cc: GNSO secretariat
Subject: [council] Fw: GNSO Review WP Feasibility&Prioritization Motion

 

All,

I was just informed that this motion was not deferred but was withdrawn at the 
public council meeting in Marrekech. As such, it should have been submitted by 
4 April to be considered during the 14 April meeting. In order to provide the 
council the chance to discuss the motion next week as well as to be in line 
with the GNSO Operating Procedures (see below) I herewith submit the motion 
according to para 3.3.2 and request to consider it despite submission after the 
submission deadline.

In particular, following the briefing session on 12 April the Council may find 
a position on whether to vote on this motion.

 

Sorry for the confusion.

 

Best regards

 

Wolf-Ulrich

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

GNSO Operating Procedures

>From section 3.3.2 Submission of Reports and Motions

 

If a motion is submitted after the Submission Deadline, the GNSO Council shall 
consider the motion if the following requirements are met: 

 

a. The motion (including any report or other supporting documentation) is 
submitted to the GNSO Council at least 24 hours in advance of the GNSO Council 
meeting; 

b. The motion is accompanied by a request to consider the motion despite 
submission after the Submission Deadline (a “Request for Consideration”); 

c. A vote on the Request for Consideration shall be called as the first order 
of business 

for the agenda item that deals with the motion. The vote on the Request for 
Consideration must be unanimous (i.e., all Councilors or their proxies must 
vote and all votes cast must be in favor of considering the motion at such GNSO 
Council meeting) for the motion to be considered at such GNSO Council meeting. 

 

If these requirements are not met, the motion shall not be considered submitted 
for the next Council meeting. For the avoidance of doubt, if the motion is 
proposed again for a subsequent Council meeting, it shall not be considered a 
resubmitted motion under the rules for Resubmission of a Motion in these 
Operating Procedures.  

 

 

From: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>  

Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 1:27 PM

To: GNSO council <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  

Subject: GNSO Review WP Feasibility&Prioritization Motion

 

Dear council colleagues,

 

I hope you’ve returned safely and could take some rest from the Marrakech 
meeting.

 

I’d like to call to your mind that on the occasion of the public council 
meeting I’ve withdrawn the motion on the GNSO Review WP 
Feasibility&Prioritization since from the discussion it became obvious that 
more SG/C-internal information exchange was needed before submitting the 
material to the OEC of the Board.

 

The next council call where the motion could be discussed is scheduled on 14 
April with the motion submission deadline on 04 April. This counts a bit more 
than 2 weeks from now – with the Easter holidays in between. Therefore I would 
highly appreciate you initiating talks in your related SG/C. Please enter any 
question/comment to the list you may have regarding the (see attached)

*       feasibility assessment and prioritization of the GNSO review WP 
*       draft motion


Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich