Re: [registrars] Registrar Statement friendly amendment

["Robert F. Connelly" <BobC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 05:47 AM 4/18/06, Marcus Faure wrote:
> I suggest to alter 2b. While this may be appropriate for gTLDs,
> it is not for sTLDs. sTLDs operate in a defined environment with
> special needs, the GNSO has only limited insight. The delegation of
> "certain" policy making decisions is appropriate  - and necessary
> unless you want the sTLD to stall -  provided the policy
> range is well-defined. The problem is to find a definition of the term
> "certain".
Dear Marcus:  What you are doing is to propose an amendment to the original 
motion.  Our By-Laws and Rules of Procedure have established an alternate 
to Robert's Rules for handling amendments.
Jon has the option of amending the original motion if he accepts your 
amendment as a "friendly amendment",  If he does not do so, we will have a 
separate vote on your proposed amendment.
Reading on, I see that Ross has commented on your proposed amendment and 
that Tim has proposed what he hopes Jon will accept as a "friendly 
amendment".
I concur with Ross' statement that the amending process, both friendly and 
unfriendly, is structured in such a manner that it will not result in a 
delay in the vote on the original motion.
I am pleased to see the orderly manner in which this motion is moving 
forward with thoughtful, rational debate taking place by Email.
Regards, BobC