[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Friendly Amendments was Re: [] SCI Letter ...

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

On 28-Jan-15 09:57, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Again…, for the record, I’m also fine picking up the task of
> formalising procedures for friendly amendments as soon as we can, and
> as soon as the GNSO council deems it appropriate/practical. There is
> no mention of how friendly amendments are used in the GNSO operating
> procedures, but they are used quite frequently, and often become
> problematic.

This one is thorny.  Friendly amendments are not defined anywhere.  In
fact, Roberts Rules, specifically ricules the possiblity of such things
being valid.  The ordinary claim is that once a motion is made it no
longer belongs to the person who made the motion but belongs to the
group, in this case the council, itself.

I tried to open this issue for discussion when I first became chair of
the GNSO, but was quickly convinced that as new chair who had to tread
carefully, this was not a subject the GNSO or its council was ready to
deal with.  It was a trusted practice, and I learned to leave it alone.

Perhaps now, though, almost a decade later, the GNSO may be ready to
deal with this issue.  I think it is a very intersting issue for the SCI
to work on.

One change that has been made in the internal process, since my first
time in the council, is that now not only the motioner has to approve
the friendly, but the seconder is asked to as well.  Not sure when this
change was made or how it came into practice, but it seems to be the
practice now.

avri