Re: [council] Amendments to GNSO Council Motions

[John Berard <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Asking the SCI to assess is a sensible approach for a sensible practice.

Berard

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 22, 2014, at 12:58 PM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> wrote:
> 
> All,
>  
> During the last GNSO Council meeting, we dealt with the issue of amendments 
> to motions that were considered 'unfriendly'. Having checked the GNSO 
> Operating Procedures, I see that the practice that has been used by the 
> Council over the last few years is actually not incorporated there.
>  
> The question therefore is whether this should be the case or whether we are 
> comfortable with leaving this as a practice? Any amendments to motions that 
> are not considered friendly by the original maker of the motion (and the 
> seconder?) are currently submitted to a simple majority vote.  If the vote 
> passes, the motion is amended accordingly and if not, the proposed amendment 
> is discarded. If we do believe this should be incorporated into the GNSO 
> Operating Procedures, one option would be to pass this on as a narrowly 
> scoped issue to the SCI.  Alternatively, mark this as one of the items that 
> needs to go on the list of items that will need to be addressed when the 
> recommendations of the upcoming GNSO Review are implemented.
>  
> Should the Council wish to pass this on to the SCI, it could be scoped along 
> the following lines:
>  
> 'The GNSO Council has a standing practice of considering formally proposed 
> amendments to motions by requesting the maker (and the seconder) of the 
> motion to consider whether or not the proposed amendment is considered 
> 'friendly'. If the amendment is considered 'friendly' by the maker of the 
> motion and the seconder, the motion is amended accordingly and the amended 
> motion is then considered by the GNSO Council. If the proposed amendment is 
> not considered 'friendly' by the maker of the motion the proposed amendment 
> is put to a vote (if the seconder objects, he/she may choose to withdraw 
> their name as the seconder of the motion). If it meets the simple majority 
> threshold, the motion is amended accordingly and the amended motion is then 
> considered by the GNSO Council. If it does not meet the simple majority 
> threshold, the amendment is discarded and the original motion is then 
> considered by the GNSO Council. The GNSO Council would like to incorporate 
> this practice into the GNSO Operating Procedures and as such requests the SCI 
> to propose the appropriate language as well as section in order to do so'.
>  
> I look forward to any feedback you may wish to provide on the above. 
>  
> In addition, the formal definition of the role of a seconder of a motion may 
> need some work but I suggest we deal first with the issue of motion 
> amendments.
>  
> Thanks.
>  
>  
> Jonathan
>