Opinion: With the new requirements for posting motions and documents at least a week in advance, I think that deferral should become rare. It think they should only occur in cases which
the motion has substantively changed, e.g. by amendment
the information necessary for a vote is not yet available, e.g. a missing document etc.
relevant information came in after the 8 days of motion posting.
I also think that every deferral request should be accompanied by the specifics of one of these 3 reasons. In these cases I think it should be automatically deferred. I think 2nd and 3rd deferral should only happen when one of these 3 conditions still pertains at the next meeting.
I do not think that the excuse of "we have not had time during the week to consider this well formed and complete motion" is a valid reason.
The only exception is that this refinement of the rules should refer to non PDP related motions PDP related motions have their own set of rules.
I think a deferral motion run even in cases "we have not had time during the week to consider this well formed and complete motion", because, in my humble opinion, could be true (there are people that have another life out of ICANN ecosistem for instance, or like group strategy, or whatever), and we are giving the possibility to present a good or better new perspective on the issue, with more time to study the proposal.
In this case the remedy could be not to have more than one time to present a deferral motion with any fundament.
On this point I believe is better to consider a motion to defer the motion in any case, but not more than one time, with a limited time to back to the motion.
The RoPs even request for 8 business days in advance to a council meeting. The present practice is using 8 calendar days. Because it may be difficult to define a "universal" business day - countries have different holidays - one could think over this period of time.
Proposal made by Avri is excellent, complete, and rational, but my experience in legal matters, and walking by courts, make me say the better rule is not a complex rule, a rule without conditions, without possibility to discuss about it. A short rule, clear, concise and concrete, simple and understandable by all.
For that, my proposal is to limit deferral motions, in all cases and only for one time, it means can be possible to present only one time a deferral motion for an issue determinated .
Establish situations in which we can raise or not a deferral motion, simply means (in my opinion) give more posibilities to complicate a desition , and for avoid a deferral we are generating a discussion without end about the rule(IMHO). This can be worse than give the possibility to defer the motion for some time
To show this we can see the following
For instance, in Avri`s rule proposal: The possibility to arise a deferral motion could be when:
point 1 : "the motion has substantively changed". the conflict could arise to define : What means a change sustantive? How we can measurement it? When a change is sustantive?
point 2: "the information necessary for a vote is not yet available". The conflict or doubt could be on : What is considered an necessary information?
lastly, on the point 3: "relevant information came in after the 8 days of motion posting". Conflict can arise to determinate when the 8 day start? Why 8 and not 9 or 7 or 10?
So, many times (IMHO) is better to lose something, to win less conflicts and the time to solve them.
Finally I believe, based in my experience, the proposal to consider in any case, a possibilty of deferral motion one time, and fix for how many time can be deferred could be more effective.
Thank you from me and Ron for the comments already posted. More comments collected over the past week are below.
============
The deferral of motions at the request of any councilor for one meeting of the Council is a reasonable safeguard against moving forward on something that has not gotten adequate discussion in one constituency or another.
Because this is routine on the front-end, it ought to be harder to forestall a PDP as it rolls through the process. A higher voting threshold makes sense in this instance. However, in some cases, new information surfaces (afterall, some PDPs take 18-to-24 months to ripen; the world can change a lot). That said, even a motion to stop a PDP because of new information ought to have to meet that higher threshold.
Socializing motions is an excellent idea. Right now, it is sporadic. Mostly, motions are filed on the last day they can be and the following 8 days are spent by the other constituencies assessing them. We could create a motion pending file that would put on the agenda for every council meeting a list of motions or areas being considered that might pop at the next meeting.
Call it a preliminary motion agenda.
=============
From May 31 SCI call:
Ron: What constitutes a deferral?
How many deferrals can be made to make sure this doesn’t become a habit?
Staff mentioned to lead direction of discussion…the idea of socializing the motions in advance…they’d know when it’s coming down the pike…what does it mean to ICANN, what does it mean to the constituency---maybe a “Motions Pending” file , preliminary motions agenda…to put things in the right direction, so interested parties could give thought and/or attention before the start of quick window; allow community to respond in a better way
Avri: criteria around which motions can be delayed…needs more discussion within the group
Wolf: the specific issue is timing
Ron: How to define what’s reasonable so parameters aren’t too tight or too loose…enough room to move to make this operate effectively at GNSO level.
In general, I think there is a feeling that deferrals are a good thing to have…news comes to the fore and needs to be digested on the constituency level. But also, if there will be a deferral of a motion, it should come back at the top of next agenda. If it’s a stalling tactic by a group, it would only hold for a limited period of time.
We’re on the right track; we need to just figure out how it’ll work and the criteria.
Avri: I wanted to step back and say, just because we’re dealing with an issue , we may just need to understand it. From history, doesn’t look like it’s been abused too much…is going along fine. Be very careful about adding rules and conditions…we’ll end up with more incredibly confusing charts, like on the voting thresholds. OR “We think this is a good set of guidelines,” Council Operating Procedures, By-Law changes, etc.
Wolf: With statistics, it depend on how you read them. The absolute numbers aren't that high.
For my part, I would be very grateful if you would note Ron Andruff’s perspective (he’s asked me to write this in).
It appears there is very little abuse of this. We can put it on our list to monitor one year from now. Maybe we can watch instead of creating a new policy. There are enough policies out there. Monitor number of motions, and the number that are deferred, and specific SG. # motions made, # deferred, SG-based list of deferrals
If we look in a year and it’s the same or less, we can just continue to monitor.
As noted as well on the last call, one of the main reasons for the GNSO Council to refer this issue to the SCI is that the deferral of motions at the request of any Council member for one meeting is currently an informal practice that isn't written down anywhere. In a recent GNSO Council meeting, a motion was on the agenda that some considered imperative to vote on during that specific meeting, while others requested a deferral. As a result, the question was raised whether this practice should be formalized so that it is clear what the rules are (for example, should there be any mechanism by which a request for a deferral can be overruled?) or is it ok to let it continue as an informal practice which is overseen by the GNSO Council Chair? As a result, the SCI may want to give further consideration as to whether these rules should be formalized (and if so, how these should look) or whether to leave it as an informal practice as it currently is.
I Agree with Angie on: "The deferral of motions at the request of any councilor for one meeting of the Council is a reasonable safeguard against moving forward on something that has not gotten adequate discussion in one constituency or another."
I consider is needed formalized a rule on this issue, but I insist rule must be clear, eassy and practical to avoid further discussions if we put some considerations to do previous to consider deferral motions.
Is dangerous on the other side to leave the possibility to approve or not a deferral motion, only to GNSO chair. For that I think is needed to stablish a rule for this issue.
Again, I consider rule to fix must be simple, to avoid further discussion trying to clarify or stablish if the conditions are fulfilled in each case. In my contry we say : "If rule is good and short, rule is two time good".
My experience on the courts say the same, when rule have many considerations to do before apply, could generate more discussions and the remedy could be worst than illness.
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Deferrals - Key questions / logic points in order to try to achieve consensus
Key Questions / Issues
· Do we permit 1st deferrals?
· Do we require a reason / motivation for deferrals?
· If a reason is required / provided, is it subject to any test?
· Are 1st deferrals automatic or do we subject them to some form of vote / test?
· Can a deferral be overruled? If so, what is the condition / test to overrule?
· Do we permit 2nd deferrals?
· If we permit 2nd deferrals, do we subject them to some form of vote / test?
· Do we permit 3rd deferrals?
My Answers
· Do we permit 1st deferrals?
Yes
· Do we require a reason / motivation for deferrals?
Yes
· If a reason is required / provided, is it subject to any test?
No, we trust the provider of the reason
· Are 1st deferrals automatically granted or do we subject them to some form of vote / test?
Yes, they are automatically granted
· Can a 1st deferral be overruled? If so, what is the condition / test to overrule?
Yes, subject to a request from a councillor and a [supermajority] vote of the council to deny
· Do we permit 2nd deferrals?
Yes
· If we permit 2nd deferrals, do we subject them to some form of vote / test?
Yes, 2nd deferral requires a request from a councillor and a [supermajority] vote of the council to permit
· Do we permit 3rd deferrals?
No. A motion should be voted on or withdrawn at this stage.
Note: I use “withdrawn” not “tabled” as tabled in my English, tabled means put forward / submitted not withdrawn
------
On 12 Jul 2012, at 12:45, J. Scott Evans wrote:
Dear All:
I check Roberts Rules of Order (an online version). I found what I think is a general guideline in Art. V on Subsidiary Motions, Section 31 "To Postpone to a Time Certain or Definitely". The text of this section may be found at http://www.rulesonline.com/rror-05.htm#31. While I in no way believe we should adopt the Roberts Procedure wholesale, I do think we could use the general principals set forth in this section as a guide.
My Answers
· Do we permit 1st deferrals?
Yes, under appropriate circumstances and after a formal motion has been adopted.
· Do we require a reason / motivation for deferrals?
Yes, during the debate on the motion to defer, the moving party should have to justify its motion with its rationale for seeking a deferral.
· If a reason is required / provided, is it subject to any test?
No, but it can be challenged during the debate on the motion to defer.
· Are 1st deferrals automatically granted or do we subject them to some form of vote / test?
No, the moving party's motion must be carried by a vote of the Council.
· Can a 1st deferral be overruled? If so, what is the condition / test to overrule?
Yes, the Council can vote down the motion to defer. [Query: what is the appropriate threshold?]
· Do we permit 2nd deferrals?
Yes, again, the party seeking a deferral needs to make a motion that is debated and then voted on by the Council.
· If we permit 2nd deferrals, do we subject them to some form of vote / test?
15 Comments
Avri Doria
Interesting stats on the deferrals (assuming I counted correctly)
CSG 8 (3 each for BC and IPC and 2 for ISPCP)
NCSG 7
RySG 6
No SG listed 4
RrSG 3
Congratulations go to RrSG, which one can assume to be the SG that had the best record of doing their homework and being ready the meetings.
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
Or they were satisfied that others asked for deferral...
Avri Doria
Opinion: With the new requirements for posting motions and documents at least a week in advance, I think that deferral should become rare. It think they should only occur in cases which
I also think that every deferral request should be accompanied by the specifics of one of these 3 reasons. In these cases I think it should be automatically deferred. I think 2nd and 3rd deferral should only happen when one of these 3 conditions still pertains at the next meeting.
I do not think that the excuse of "we have not had time during the week to consider this well formed and complete motion" is a valid reason.
The only exception is that this refinement of the rules should refer to non PDP related motions PDP related motions have their own set of rules.
Carlos Aguirre
I think a deferral motion run even in cases "we have not had time during the week to consider this well formed and complete motion", because, in my humble opinion, could be true (there are people that have another life out of ICANN ecosistem for instance, or like group strategy, or whatever), and we are giving the possibility to present a good or better new perspective on the issue, with more time to study the proposal.
In this case the remedy could be not to have more than one time to present a deferral motion with any fundament.
On this point I believe is better to consider a motion to defer the motion in any case, but not more than one time, with a limited time to back to the motion.
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
The RoPs even request for 8 business days in advance to a council meeting. The present practice is using 8 calendar days. Because it may be difficult to define a "universal" business day - countries have different holidays - one could think over this period of time.
Carlos Aguirre
Proposal made by Avri is excellent, complete, and rational, but my experience in legal matters, and walking by courts, make me say the better rule is not a complex rule, a rule without conditions, without possibility to discuss about it. A short rule, clear, concise and concrete, simple and understandable by all.
For that, my proposal is to limit deferral motions, in all cases and only for one time, it means can be possible to present only one time a deferral motion for an issue determinated .
Establish situations in which we can raise or not a deferral motion, simply means (in my opinion) give more posibilities to complicate a desition , and for avoid a deferral we are generating a discussion without end about the rule(IMHO). This can be worse than give the possibility to defer the motion for some time
To show this we can see the following
For instance, in Avri`s rule proposal: The possibility to arise a deferral motion could be when:
point 1 : "the motion has substantively changed". the conflict could arise to define : What means a change sustantive? How we can measurement it? When a change is sustantive?
point 2: "the information necessary for a vote is not yet available". The conflict or doubt could be on : What is considered an necessary information?
lastly, on the point 3: "relevant information came in after the 8 days of motion posting". Conflict can arise to determinate when the 8 day start? Why 8 and not 9 or 7 or 10?
So, many times (IMHO) is better to lose something, to win less conflicts and the time to solve them.
Finally I believe, based in my experience, the proposal to consider in any case, a possibilty of deferral motion one time, and fix for how many time can be deferred could be more effective.
My two cents on this point.
Angie Graves
Thank you from me and Ron for the comments already posted. More comments collected over the past week are below.
============
The deferral of motions at the request of any councilor for one meeting of the Council is a reasonable safeguard against moving forward on something that has not gotten adequate discussion in one constituency or another.
Because this is routine on the front-end, it ought to be harder to forestall a PDP as it rolls through the process. A higher voting threshold makes sense in this instance. However, in some cases, new information surfaces (afterall, some PDPs take 18-to-24 months to ripen; the world can change a lot). That said, even a motion to stop a PDP because of new information ought to have to meet that higher threshold.
Socializing motions is an excellent idea. Right now, it is sporadic. Mostly, motions are filed on the last day they can be and the following 8 days are spent by the other constituencies assessing them. We could create a motion pending file that would put on the agenda for every council meeting a list of motions or areas being considered that might pop at the next meeting.
Call it a preliminary motion agenda.
=============
From May 31 SCI call:
Ron: What constitutes a deferral?
How many deferrals can be made to make sure this doesn’t become a habit?
Staff mentioned to lead direction of discussion…the idea of socializing the motions in advance…they’d know when it’s coming down the pike…what does it mean to ICANN, what does it mean to the constituency---maybe a “Motions Pending” file , preliminary motions agenda…to put things in the right direction, so interested parties could give thought and/or attention before the start of quick window; allow community to respond in a better way
Avri: criteria around which motions can be delayed…needs more discussion within the group
Wolf: the specific issue is timing
Ron: How to define what’s reasonable so parameters aren’t too tight or too loose…enough room to move to make this operate effectively at GNSO level.
In general, I think there is a feeling that deferrals are a good thing to have…news comes to the fore and needs to be digested on the constituency level. But also, if there will be a deferral of a motion, it should come back at the top of next agenda. If it’s a stalling tactic by a group, it would only hold for a limited period of time.
We’re on the right track; we need to just figure out how it’ll work and the criteria.
Avri: I wanted to step back and say, just because we’re dealing with an issue , we may just need to understand it. From history, doesn’t look like it’s been abused too much…is going along fine. Be very careful about adding rules and conditions…we’ll end up with more incredibly confusing charts, like on the voting thresholds. OR “We think this is a good set of guidelines,” Council Operating Procedures, By-Law changes, etc.
Wolf: With statistics, it depend on how you read them. The absolute numbers aren't that high.
Ron: A lighter touch may be called for.
=============
Angie Graves
Also, for your consideration:
What’s common sense here?
For my part, I would be very grateful if you would note Ron Andruff’s perspective (he’s asked me to write this in).
It appears there is very little abuse of this. We can put it on our list to monitor one year from now. Maybe we can watch instead of creating a new policy. There are enough policies out there. Monitor number of motions, and the number that are deferred, and specific SG. # motions made, # deferred, SG-based list of deferrals
If we look in a year and it’s the same or less, we can just continue to monitor.
Other thoughts?
Angie Graves
Are there other thoughts either for or against the comments above, or other ideas?
Marika Konings
As noted as well on the last call, one of the main reasons for the GNSO Council to refer this issue to the SCI is that the deferral of motions at the request of any Council member for one meeting is currently an informal practice that isn't written down anywhere. In a recent GNSO Council meeting, a motion was on the agenda that some considered imperative to vote on during that specific meeting, while others requested a deferral. As a result, the question was raised whether this practice should be formalized so that it is clear what the rules are (for example, should there be any mechanism by which a request for a deferral can be overruled?) or is it ok to let it continue as an informal practice which is overseen by the GNSO Council Chair? As a result, the SCI may want to give further consideration as to whether these rules should be formalized (and if so, how these should look) or whether to leave it as an informal practice as it currently is.
Carlos Aguirre
I Agree with Angie on: "The deferral of motions at the request of any councilor for one meeting of the Council is a reasonable safeguard against moving forward on something that has not gotten adequate discussion in one constituency or another."
I consider is needed formalized a rule on this issue, but I insist rule must be clear, eassy and practical to avoid further discussions if we put some considerations to do previous to consider deferral motions.
Is dangerous on the other side to leave the possibility to approve or not a deferral motion, only to GNSO chair. For that I think is needed to stablish a rule for this issue.
Again, I consider rule to fix must be simple, to avoid further discussion trying to clarify or stablish if the conditions are fulfilled in each case. In my contry we say : "If rule is good and short, rule is two time good".
My experience on the courts say the same, when rule have many considerations to do before apply, could generate more discussions and the remedy could be worst than illness.
Angie Graves
So–a formal, documented rule, but one that is clear and to-the-point–is a good course to take? Do others in the SCI feel differently about this?
Avri Doria
Questions:
If leave as practice
If rule
Avri Doria
Email List content from Jonathan Robinson and J. Scott Evans
From: Jonathan Robinson
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 12:25 AM
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Deferrals - Key questions / logic points in order to try to achieve consensus
Key Questions / Issues
· Do we permit 1st deferrals?
· Do we require a reason / motivation for deferrals?
· If a reason is required / provided, is it subject to any test?
· Are 1st deferrals automatic or do we subject them to some form of vote / test?
· Can a deferral be overruled? If so, what is the condition / test to overrule?
· Do we permit 2nd deferrals?
· If we permit 2nd deferrals, do we subject them to some form of vote / test?
· Do we permit 3rd deferrals?
My Answers
· Do we permit 1st deferrals?
Yes
· Do we require a reason / motivation for deferrals?
Yes
· If a reason is required / provided, is it subject to any test?
No, we trust the provider of the reason
· Are 1st deferrals automatically granted or do we subject them to some form of vote / test?
Yes, they are automatically granted
· Can a 1st deferral be overruled? If so, what is the condition / test to overrule?
Yes, subject to a request from a councillor and a [supermajority] vote of the council to deny
· Do we permit 2nd deferrals?
Yes
· If we permit 2nd deferrals, do we subject them to some form of vote / test?
Yes, 2nd deferral requires a request from a councillor and a [supermajority] vote of the council to permit
· Do we permit 3rd deferrals?
No. A motion should be voted on or withdrawn at this stage.
Note: I use “withdrawn” not “tabled” as tabled in my English, tabled means put forward / submitted not withdrawn
------
On 12 Jul 2012, at 12:45, J. Scott Evans wrote:
Dear All:
I check Roberts Rules of Order (an online version). I found what I think is a general guideline in Art. V on Subsidiary Motions, Section 31 "To Postpone to a Time Certain or Definitely". The text of this section may be found at http://www.rulesonline.com/rror-05.htm#31. While I in no way believe we should adopt the Roberts Procedure wholesale, I do think we could use the general principals set forth in this section as a guide.
My Answers
· Do we permit 1st deferrals?
Yes, under appropriate circumstances and after a formal motion has been adopted.
· Do we require a reason / motivation for deferrals?
Yes, during the debate on the motion to defer, the moving party should have to justify its motion with its rationale for seeking a deferral.
· If a reason is required / provided, is it subject to any test?
No, but it can be challenged during the debate on the motion to defer.
· Are 1st deferrals automatically granted or do we subject them to some form of vote / test?
No, the moving party's motion must be carried by a vote of the Council.
· Can a 1st deferral be overruled? If so, what is the condition / test to overrule?
Yes, the Council can vote down the motion to defer. [Query: what is the appropriate threshold?]
· Do we permit 2nd deferrals?
Yes, again, the party seeking a deferral needs to make a motion that is debated and then voted on by the Council.
· If we permit 2nd deferrals, do we subject them to some form of vote / test?
Yes.
· Do we permit 3rd deferrals?
No.
Angie Graves
This is great information to have. Two questions: In the current state, for a deferred motion, what is the term of deferral?
And what is the current treatment of the motion following the conclusion of that term–is it different than the treatment of other motions?