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