<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div>Hi Greg,</div><div><br></div><div>A few comments in-line below:</div><br><div><div>On Dec 16, 2014, at 6:44 PM, Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">Anne,<div><br></div><div>Once again, congratulations. Here are two potential work items that I would like to suggest as priorities for 2015:</div><div><br></div><div>1. <u>Clarifying that a "Resubmitted Motion" is Eligible for Waiver of the 10-day Deadline for Submission of a Motion</u>. Due to some drafting inconsistencies between sections of the GNSO Council Operating Procedure, it was left unclear whether a "resubmitted motion" could be submitted less than 10 days before a meeting accompanied by a request for waiver of the 10-day deadline. Either resubmitted motions should be treated the same as other motions on this score (recognizing that there are other hurdles that resubmitted motions may have to face), or resubmitted motions are ineligible for waiver (which would lead to delay in consideration of the motion and/or calling o special session of the GNSO Council. This should be clarified, and the necessary amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures should be made.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I also support adding this to the agenda. It seems like unfinished business to me, and I see no reason why the waiver should not be applicable to resubmitted motions either.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>2. <u>Clarifying and F<span style="font-size:13px">ormalizing the Council's Procedure Regarding "F</span><span style="font-size:13px">riendly</span><span style="font-size:13px"> A</span><span style="font-size:13px">mendments</span></u><span style="font-size:13px"><u>."</u> "Friendly amendments" are not mentioned in the GNSO Council Operating Procedure. As such, the Council's current use of friendly amendments is based at best on "oral tradition." Based on my research, t</span><span style="font-size:13px">here is no one generally accepted definition or treatment of "</span><span style="font-size:13px">friendly</span><span style="font-size:13px"> </span><span style="font-size:13px">amendments.</span><span style="font-size:13px">" </span></div><div><span style="font-size:13px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:13px">First, there appear to be two approaches to defining what a "friendly amendment" is:</span></div><div><span style="font-size:13px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:13px">a. The more common approach is that <b>a</b></span><b><span style="font-size:13px">n</span><span style="font-size:13px"> </span><span style="font-size:13px">amendment</span><span style="font-size:13px"> </span><span style="font-size:13px">that changes the meaning of the original motion generally cannot be considered "F</span></b><span style="font-size:13px"><b>riendly,</b>" under any circumstances. Friendly amendments should only clarify or enhance the original motion. If a motion is not clearly friendly, the question of whether it qualifies as friendly should be opened to the floor. </span></div><div><span style="font-size:13px">b. Alternately,<b> any amendment will be considered "Friendly," </b>if the member proposing it says it is, without any opportunity for discussion or objection</span></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Point “b” is fairly accurate except that there is normally some discussion of the friendly amendment being suggested that takes place. The earlier the amendment is made, the more time there is for discussion. I have personally found it problematic when an amendment is suggested only hours before the vote is scheduled to take place.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div><span style="font-size:13px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:13px">Second, once the amendment there appear to be three basic approaches to handling motions defined as "Friendly":</span></div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">x. <b>No <span>Friendly</span> <span>Amendments</span>.</b> This is the position in Robert's Rules of Order, applied strictly. Any <span>amendment to a motion</span> must be discussed and voted on separately from the (unamended) motion. As one commentator explained "<span style="color:rgb(102,102,102);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12px;line-height:17px">Once a motion has been made, seconded, and stated by the chair, it belongs to the group as a whole, not to the individual who first proposed it. It is the group as a whole that must accept or reject any proposed amendment, whatever the intent of the proposer. The maker of the motion, and the seconder, have the same rights as the other members of the group – no more and no less."</span></div><div style="font-size:13px">y. <b>If the Movant and Second (of the original motion) approve <u>and</u> there is no objection from the floor, the motion is amended automatically. (Variation: there must be full consensus on the <span>amendment for the motion to be amended automatically</span></b>.<b>)</b> If there is any objection (or lack of consensus) by any member, the <span>amendment</span> must be discussed and voted on separately from the motion.</div><div style="font-size:13px">z. <b>To be Friendly, the Movant and Second of the original motion must approve; if they approve, the motion is <span>amended</span> automatically.</b> The unamended motion disappears and is replaced by the amended motion, without any discussion of or opportunity to vote on the original motion, and without any discussion about whether the amendment is appropriate.</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">Based on recent practice, it appears that the GNSO Council falls into the last category in each list (i.e., (b) and (z)), but there is no evidence that this was a conscious decision. I believe that a somewhat more restrictive approach is appropriate -- basically (a) and (y) above. The SCI should consider this and then clarify and formalize GNSO treatment to avoid confusion and potential gaming.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think this is an accurate description, and I second that options “a” and “y” should be explored as formalised procedures to friendly amendments. Another detail we would need to hash out to achieve this is actually also formalising the role of a seconder to a motion in the operating procedures. Although this is customary in the GNSO Council, there is no mention of a requirement for a seconding of any motion currently documented (unless I’ve missed it somewhere).</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks.</div><div><br></div><div>Amr</div></div></body></html>