[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For Discussion: Amendments to Motions
Dear SCI members, On today's call the SCI began a discussion concerning whether the informal GNSO Council customs relating to amendments to motions should be incorporated in the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if so, in what form. For background on the issue, please see the attached Review Request. Here is a brief summary of the points raised in the discussion. I've included the relevant discussion from the Chat Room below and the transcript will be circulated separately. I would be grateful to those who were in the meeting to let me know whether there were any points I missed and whether there is additional information to inform this discussion. Key Points: * The GNSO Operating Procedures do not contain any guidance concerning amendments of any sort, or define "friendly" and "unfriendly". There also is no guidance on seconding motions. * The current informal custom is that the person who proposes a motion decides whether an amendment is friendly or not. (See the attached Review Request for a full description of the current practice.) * Roberts Rules of Order treat amendments as neutral (neither friendly or unfriendly). * The current informal custom in the Council is that if an amendment is deemed unfriendly then a vote is held on the motion (threshold: simply majority). * Voting on amendments is standard outside of the GNSO/ICANN community. * Timing of the submission of amendments has been problematic, sometimes not allowing time for consultation with constituencies and stakeholder groups. The SCI members on the call today decided that discussion on this issue should continue on the list and at the next meeting. In particular, members should consider whether the GNSO Operating Procedures should be revised to include specific procedures on amendments. Possible procedures to include could be: > * Timing of submission of amendments; > * Defining "friendly" and "unfriendly"; > * When and how votes on amendments are conducted; and > * When and how amendments are seconded. Please send any comments in response to this message as the start of the discussion thread. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Chat Room: Lori Schulman:Are "friendly" and "unfriendly" defined in the GNSO procedures. Julie Hedlund:@Lori: No, there is nothing in the Procedures addressing amendments of either kind. Lori Schulman:Without a definition, how do we delineate a procdure? Julie Hedlund:@Lori: We would have to consider whether to incorporate a definition in the addition to the procedures. We could probably use Roberts Rules of Order as a guide. ken stubbs - afilias:15 years ago for me (joined council) ken stubbs - afilias:+1 avri Amr Elsadr:@Avri: In BA, council also voted on whether to accept the amended language before voting on the motion. Avri Doria:under the tradion on the maker of the motion and seconder get to decide if it is friendly. rudi issue is the crix of the issue on friendly motions. who owns changing it? Lori Schulman:I tend to agree with Roberts. Amendments should be agnostic. Lori Schulman:neither friendly nor unfriendly. Mary Wong:The consequence of characterizing a proposed amendment as friendly or not is whether or not the Council will then first need to vote on the proposed amendment (whether to accept it) Mary Wong:Again, it's Council custom - first vote on amendment if considered unfriendly Mary Wong:Needs majority to add the amendment to the original motion Avri Doria:voting on amendments is the standard even in the real world. Lori Schulman:yup Julie Hedlund:@Avri: You mean we aren't in the real world ;-) Mary Wong:Yup just pointing out the consequence Lori Schulman:+1 to Avri's comment about the "real" world. Avri Doria:Julie, you tell me. I can't ever tell for sure. Julie Hedlund:@Avri: Then we are both lost since I'm not sure either :-) Rudi Vansnick:"friendly" is to me a personal (human) perception not procedural Amr Elsadr:@Rudi: Yes..., which is why it is highly subjective. Avri Doria:i have to chair a IGF type meeting on the hour so will drop off at around xx58 Angie Graves:I agree with Amr. Are we working against an agreed-upon definition of "friendly"? Avri Doria:for a bit of history, when i first becasme GNSO chair in antiquity, i tried to get rid of the whole friendly ammendment thing. at that time i was told to leave it alone. now, after all these years i have grown accustomed to it. Amr Elsadr:I wouldn't try to define friendly here. Amr Elsadr:Seems unnecessary to me. Angie Graves:Me neither. Just wondering if one exists. ken stubbs:sorry.. wifi wnt down for a few min Amr Elsadr:@Angie: I think you're friendly. Does that count? ;-) Angie Graves:hehe Angie Graves:me too you! Avri Doria:continue to discuss on list? Lori Schulman:I think that if you want to codify rules around friendly amendments then you need to define them Amr Elsadr:@Avri: +1 Angie Graves:Thanks, Avri ken stubbs:awareness needs to be made at council level before we move much further Avri Doria:some mornig i wake up and know i am not going to be all that friendly that day. Amr Elsadr:@Lori: I only meant that if we work out and suggest codified rules, those will determine how friendly amendments may be submitted and accepted without us having to define it now. That's all. Lori Schulman:Amr: got it. Attachment:
SCI Review Request - Motions - 5 Mar 2015 v2.docx Attachment:
smime.p7s
|