All, During the last GNSO Council meeting, we dealt with the issue of amendments to motions that were considered 'unfriendly'. Having checked the GNSO Operating Procedures, I see that the practice that has been used by the Council over the last few years is actually not incorporated there. The question therefore is whether this should be the case or whether we are comfortable with leaving this as a practice? Any amendments to motions that are not considered friendly by the original maker of the motion (and the seconder?) are currently submitted to a simple majority vote. If the vote passes, the motion is amended accordingly and if not, the proposed amendment is discarded. If we do believe this should be incorporated into the GNSO Operating Procedures, one option would be to pass this on as a narrowly scoped issue to the SCI. Alternatively, mark this as one of the items that needs to go on the list of items that will need to be addressed when the recommendations of the upcoming GNSO Review are implemented. Should the Council wish to pass this on to the SCI, it could be scoped along the following lines: 'The GNSO Council has a standing practice of considering formally proposed amendments to motions by requesting the maker (and the seconder) of the motion to consider whether or not the proposed amendment is considered 'friendly'. If the amendment is considered 'friendly' by the maker of the motion and the seconder, the motion is amended accordingly and the amended motion is then considered by the GNSO Council. If the proposed amendment is not considered 'friendly' by the maker of the motion the proposed amendment is put to a vote (if the seconder objects, he/she may choose to withdraw their name as the seconder of the motion). If it meets the simple majority threshold, the motion is amended accordingly and the amended motion is then considered by the GNSO Council. If it does not meet the simple majority threshold, the amendment is discarded and the original motion is then considered by the GNSO Council. The GNSO Council would like to incorporate this practice into the GNSO Operating Procedures and as such requests the SCI to propose the appropriate language as well as section in order to do so'. I look forward to any feedback you may wish to provide on the above. In addition, the formal definition of the role of a seconder of a motion may need some work but I suggest we deal first with the issue of motion amendments. Thanks. Jonathan