[registrars] Registrar Statement friendly amendment

[Robert F. Connelly]

At 05:47 AM 4/18/06, Marcus Faure wrote:
>I suggest to alter 2b. While this may be appropriate for gTLDs,
>it is not for sTLDs. sTLDs operate in a defined environment with
>special needs, the GNSO has only limited insight. The delegation of
>"certain" policy making decisions is appropriate  - and necessary
>unless you want the sTLD to stall -  provided the policy
>range is well-defined. The problem is to find a definition of the term
>"certain".

Dear Marcus:  What you are doing is to propose an amendment to the original 
motion.  Our By-Laws and Rules of Procedure have established an alternate 
to Robert's Rules for handling amendments.

Jon has the option of amending the original motion if he accepts your 
amendment as a "friendly amendment",  If he does not do so, we will have a 
separate vote on your proposed amendment.

Reading on, I see that Ross has commented on your proposed amendment and 
that Tim has proposed what he hopes Jon will accept as a "friendly 
amendment".

I concur with Ross' statement that the amending process, both friendly and 
unfriendly, is structured in such a manner that it will not result in a 
delay in the vote on the original motion.

I am pleased to see the orderly manner in which this motion is moving 
forward with thoughtful, rational debate taking place by Email.

Regards, BobC