Re: [council] GNSO Review WP Feasibility&Prioritization Motion

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I agree with Paul, and am glad that the GNSO operating procedures now allow for 
motions to be submitted past the traditional deadline (subject to certain 
conditions of course).

Anyway…, although seconding Wulf-Ulrich’s motion is not actually a requirement, 
I had intended to second it for the Council meeting in Marrakech, so will go 
ahead and do so now.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Apr 8, 2016, at 8:50 PM, Paul McGrady (Policy) <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> wrote:
> 
> 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 I was just informed that this motion was not deferred but was withdrawn at 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
> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 1:27 PM
> To: GNSO council
> 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
>