[ga-full] Re: Voting procedure [Was: Re: [ga] List Rule(s) Proposal: Disorderly Words]

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Roberto and all assembly members,

  I noticed that my name along with several of our members are not
listed in the rooster that registered, Roberto.  Why is that?  In my
case
I will re-register again right away.  I will notify our members, that
they need to check this rooster our closely so as to be sure to
re-register if they are left out.

  In relation to this, is there and independent body such as the FEC,
verifying that those that did register are included in the Rooster.  If
not, why not?  Seems to me this would be a prudent safeguard and
potentially and oversight issue as well for the NTIA.   Becky???

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Mark,
>
> >
> >You should use this instead. Rationale below.
> >
> > <snip>
>
> I would like to avoid to enter in the debate of the reformulation of the
>  rules for the time being, and to raise a point of order.
>
> We are taking a high risk of rediscussing things without coming to a
> conclusion if we do not have established beforehand a mechanism for
> taking vodes that can sanction officially the decisions.
> The lack of mechanism for the time being is mostly my fault, because
> when the discussion went on I did not follow up with a proposal.
> So, I believe that it is time to fill the gap.
>
> The initial proposal, from HTA, is in the archives at:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc04/msg00304.html
>
> It was later amended following some concerns (please refer to the
> archives), as follows:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc04/msg00309.html
>
> THis was almost two months ago, and there was no further contribution.
> Can we resume from there?
> Any objection to the voting procedure as it is in HTA's proposal, as
> amended in the latest version?
>
> Can we have the text above posted in the DNSO.org?
>
> I assume that the proposal for voting procedure, possibly further
> amended if somebody proposes amendments, could be "tested" against
> itself, i.e. the first ballot could be the formal approval of the
> procedure.
>
> The electorate is, of course, the list of people who registered to vote
> (see http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/rosterindex.html).
>
> This made, we could have proposals for new rules, that will be discussed
>  and voted with the approved mechanism.
>
> Fair enough?
> Comments?
>
> Regards
> Roberto
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html