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.
