[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: For Discussion: Amendments to Motions

["Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear SCI members,
Based on Rudi’s suggestion that we explore the topic of amendments to motions 
on the list,  I am offering a few thoughts:


1.       When addressing a proposed amendment to a motion, it may be that the 
first question should be whether Councilors feel they can vote on the amendment 
at the meeting where the motion is being considered, or must table the motion 
until Councilors are able to consult with their constituencies and stakeholder 
groups.  There is a custom for being able to delay a motion by one meeting and 
this may be a good place to use it – at the discretion of the Chair of the 
Council.  Could this sort of discussion occur without the need for a vote?  In 
other words, could the amended Operating Procedure call for  discussion and 
then the Chair would have discretion as to whether or not to delay the voting 
on the amendment?



2.       My view is that the maker of the motion should have some say as to  
whether or not the  motion will be amended before voting.  If he or she says 
“no” to the proposed amendment, then it seems to me it is up to the person 
requesting the amendment  to request that the motion be delayed to the next 
meeting – for purposes of further discussion and working out differences of 
opinion.  Then the Chair has discretion to delay or not delay, based on custom 
and practice.  Delaying the vote would allow for discussion among Councilors as 
to the desirability of the amendment, but of course may not always be possible 
given time constraints.  It also seems, however, that if the Chair elects not 
to delay voting on the motion, then there should be a vote as to whether the 
motion should be amended or not prior to bringing it to a vote.


3.       I believe that the current practice is that if the amendment is 
accepted by the motion maker, Council Chair checks with the seconder.  If the 
seconder agrees, the motion goes forward to a vote as amended. If the seconder 
opposes the amendment, then Council votes on whether or not the amendment will 
be added to the motion.  The question here is whether an amendment should in 
fact move forward based on a simple majority vote even if the seconder opposes. 
 Thus, the alternatives seem to be

(A) vote on the motion with amendment if simple majority carries amendment  
(current practice – will Councilors and staff please confirm?)

(B) vote on the motion without the amendment  (party suggesting amendment may 
ask for delay in voting to next meeting)

(C ) Chair delays the vote to give more time for resolution of disagreement and 
possible withdrawal of original motion with submission of amended motion prior 
to next meeting.

(D) If Chair does not delay the vote, vote on whether or not the amendment 
should be made prior to bringing the motion to a vote.  (But is this the same 
as A?)



4.       Some of the considerations:

a.       Time to consult constituencies and stakeholders if needed.

b.      Efficiency  of Council business getting done.

c.       Whether or not the amendment should be allowed at the same meeting.

d.      Whether a party may choose to withhold a proposed amendment until the 
time of the Council meeting if Council Operating Procedures favor introducing 
it late.  (“gaming” concerns)

As usual, it’s a balancing act.  In this regard, it may be useful in our next 
meeting in September to take up the example of the proposed Issues Report for 
the next round which was the subject of an amendment in the meeting in 
Argentina and run it through a hypothetical procedure that should apply to 
amendments to motions.

This is simply “food for thought” in August.  Sorry if the above is confusing.  
Hopefully we will get some further discussion before our September call.

Best wishes to all,
Anne

[cid:image001.gif@01D0CA0D.79342330]

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel

Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP |

One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725

AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> | 
www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/>






From: 
owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
 [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 1:26 PM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [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.


________________________________

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the 
individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message 
or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent 
responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient 
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this 
message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. 
The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be 
privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the 
intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy 
Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.