Re: [council] Amendments to GNSO Council Motions

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I also have confidence in the SCI’s ability to address this topic…, probably 
with a quicker result than the GNSO review. If I’m not mistaken, the SCI has 
three projects on its plate at the time being with two of them probably nearing 
final stages. There should be enough bandwidth on the committee to deal with 
this issue in the near future.

Thanks.

Amr

On May 24, 2014, at 3:06 PM, John Berard <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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