Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RESULTS: 2015 SCI Chair and Vice Chair Selection

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Greg,

A few comments in-line below:

On Dec 16, 2014, at 6:44 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Anne,
> 
> Once again, congratulations.  Here are two potential work items that I would 
> like to suggest as priorities for 2015:
> 
> 1.  Clarifying that a "Resubmitted Motion" is Eligible for Waiver of the 
> 10-day Deadline for Submission of a Motion.   Due to some drafting 
> inconsistencies between sections of the GNSO Council Operating Procedure, it 
> was left unclear whether a "resubmitted motion" could be submitted less than 
> 10 days before a meeting accompanied by a request for waiver of the 10-day 
> deadline.  Either resubmitted motions should be treated the same as other 
> motions on this score (recognizing that there are other hurdles that 
> resubmitted motions may have to face), or resubmitted motions are ineligible 
> for waiver (which would lead to delay in consideration of the motion and/or 
> calling o special session of the GNSO Council.  This should be clarified, and 
> the necessary amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures should be made.

I also support adding this to the agenda. It seems like unfinished business to 
me, and I see no reason why the waiver should not be applicable to resubmitted 
motions either.

> 
> 2. Clarifying and Formalizing the Council's Procedure Regarding "Friendly 
> Amendments."  "Friendly amendments" are not mentioned in the GNSO Council 
> Operating Procedure. As such, the Council's current use of friendly 
> amendments is based at best on "oral tradition."  Based on my research, there 
> is no one generally accepted definition or treatment of "friendly 
> amendments." 
> 
> First, there appear to be two approaches to defining what a "friendly 
> amendment" is:
> 
> a.  The more common approach is that an amendment that changes the meaning of 
> the original motion generally cannot be considered "Friendly," under any 
> circumstances. Friendly amendments should only clarify or enhance the 
> original motion.  If a motion is not clearly friendly, the question of 
> whether it qualifies as friendly should be opened to the floor. 
> b.  Alternately, any amendment will be considered "Friendly," if the member 
> proposing it says it is, without any opportunity for discussion or objection

Point “b” is fairly accurate except that there is normally some discussion of 
the friendly amendment being suggested that takes place. The earlier the 
amendment is made, the more time there is for discussion. I have personally 
found it problematic when an amendment is suggested only hours before the vote 
is scheduled to take place.

> 
> Second, once the amendment there appear to be three basic approaches to 
> handling motions defined as "Friendly":
> 
> x.  No Friendly Amendments.  This is the position in Robert's Rules of Order, 
> applied strictly.  Any amendment to a motion must be discussed and voted on 
> separately from the (unamended) motion.  As one commentator explained "Once a 
> motion has been made, seconded, and stated by the chair, it belongs to the 
> group as a whole, not to the individual who first proposed it. It is the 
> group as a whole that must accept or reject any proposed amendment, whatever 
> the intent of the proposer. The maker of the motion, and the seconder, have 
> the same rights as the other members of the group – no more and no less."
> y.  If the Movant and Second (of the original motion) approve and there is no 
> objection from the floor, the motion is amended automatically.  (Variation: 
> there must be full consensus on the amendment for the motion to be amended 
> automatically.)   If there is any objection (or lack of consensus) by any 
> member, the amendment must be discussed and voted on separately from the 
> motion.
> z.  To be Friendly, the Movant and Second of the original motion must 
> approve; if they approve, the motion is amended automatically.  The unamended 
> motion disappears and is replaced by the amended motion, without any 
> discussion of or opportunity to vote on the original motion, and without any 
> discussion about whether the amendment is appropriate.
> 
> Based on recent practice, it appears that the GNSO Council falls into the 
> last category in each list (i.e., (b) and (z)), but there is no evidence that 
> this was a conscious decision.  I believe that a somewhat more restrictive 
> approach is appropriate -- basically (a) and (y) above.  The SCI should 
> consider this and then clarify and formalize GNSO treatment to avoid 
> confusion and potential gaming.

I think this is an accurate description, and I second that options “a” and “y” 
should be explored as formalised procedures to friendly amendments. Another 
detail we would need to hash out to achieve this is actually also formalising 
the role of a seconder to a motion in the operating procedures. Although this 
is customary in the GNSO Council, there is no mention of a requirement for a 
seconding of any motion currently documented (unless I’ve missed it somewhere).

Thanks.

Amr