Re: [ga] DNSO/GA Blocking and other concerns

["LDG" <jandl@jandl.com>]

If I understand the rules correctly, a motion is made after discussion of 
the agenda topic.  With the GA, topics come up all the time.  However, 
a motion on the topic should still be brought only after discussion and 
the chair should be monitoring or moderating the discussion to some 
extent.  A motion is the step prior to a vote and should not be brought 
until there  has been enough discussion and background to warrant it.

Lately, there has a been a free-for-all and there has been little, if 
anything accomplished.  We need to have some structure.  

Frankly, I think we need to get the WG's going so we can move on to 
constructive work.

On 21 Apr 2001, at 17:11, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Harald,
> We concur on this. The normal way of handling a motion is to have it 
> seconded, then acknowledged by the Chair what gives the motion a discussion 
> framework. Usually a motion is either accepted by all and there is no need 
> for a vote, or there are amendments blocking the vote. The result is that 
> the vote never occurs before a long time, as in most a cases a consensus is 
> researched conducted by the Chair or a few stakeholders. Not acknowledging 
> a motion do not gives it the proper recognition nor the resulting framework.
> 
> The result is the mess we went into this week, with the discussion on 
> motions to remove topics from the GA ML replaced by the actual discussion 
> on parts of these topics. And all of them colliding together. The GA ML 
> should actually be quite silent and only concern the 
> announcement/discussion of new specialized MLs, the reports of he MLs and 
> the votes on the ML propositions.
> 
> What you describe in term of practical support is incredibly heavy. Is that 
> you did not find a proper tool to handle votes (in that case we 
> should  develop them or use Joop's booth) or is this an inappropriate 
> policy by the DNSO of by the iCANN? IMHO opinion a vote should be a simple 
> matter that could be handled "twice daily" as say the song.
> 
> This being an important point for net-democracy, I am interested in working 
> on the matter with who wants (we already had an analysis with WXW last 
> year. Facts of the life lowered the priority, but the need and some 
> resources are still here).
> All the best
> Jefsey
> 
> 
> 
> On 03:43 21/04/01, Harald Tveit Alvestrand said:
> >My personal comment on the matter of motions:
> >
> >A vote by the GA takes a week of wall clock time, and several hours of 
> >secretariat time as presently configured. If there is debate about the 
> >validity of votes, the time spent could easily go quite high.
> >It is not a mechanism we should trivially set in motion, or we will very 
> >quickly see "voting weariness" setting in.
> >
> >In the rules we agreed upon, we gave the chair the sole responsibility to 
> >formulate and send out votes; we did not see a better solution at the time.
> >
> >There might be other possible solutions - for instance, one could say that 
> >a petition for a motion, fully formulated and signed by at least 10 
> >members, MUST be put before the assembly by the chair. Or this threshold 
> >might be too low.
> >
> >Many of the motions I have seen on the list are what I would call 
> >"half-baked" - they are not precise in what they want to achieve, they are 
> >not precise in how they are formulated, and they are emphatically not the 
> >most useful comment the GA could make into a situation.
> >
> >If the GA is to spend the resources to go through a vote, I think we need 
> >at least to take the time to formulate it properly.
> >Roberto and I probably used the voting mechanism too rarely.
> >
> >It is still a danger that one could be using it too much.
> >
> >                Harald
> >
> >At 11:58 20.04.2001 +0000, Roberto GA wrote:
> >>Jefsey,
> >>
> >>>
> >>>What is expected is simple and common:
> >>>- a motion is proposed
> >>>- the motion is seconded
> >>>- the motion is acknowledged
> >>>- the motion may be opposed
> >>>- if it not opposed it is deemed accepted
> >>>- if it is opposed it is made to a vote
> >>>- if the vote is in favor of the motion, the motion is accepted
> >>>- once accepted the motion is acted upon and the way it is carried out is
> >>>subject to ML consensus or debate.
> >>
> >>
> >>I have a comment on this, from my past experience as Chair.
> >>Sometimes this Assembly is jumping to motions before having made any 
> >>effort to debate the issue.
> >>IMHO, the debate of the issue has to be done *before* the presentation of 
> >>motions, and not following it.
> >>In fact, when a motion is presented, seconded and acknowledged, there is 
> >>no further debate, if not on the wording of the motion.
> >>So I was feeling the need of a step in the procedure that allows the 
> >>Chair "not to acknowledge the motion" because of lack of previous 
> >>discussion, and in this case to send an implicit invitation to debate 
> >>(and maybe give a deadline, at which the floor will be open for motions).
> >>
> >>Regards
> >>Roberto
> >>
> >>
> >>_________________________________________________________________
> >>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> >>
> >>--
> >>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
> >
> >--
> >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
> >
> 
> --
> 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
> 


Leah Gallegos
AtlanticRoot Network, Inc. http://www.biztld.net
The DotBIZ tld Registry - the REAL one.  Stop ICANN
from duplicating the .BIZ tld in their root and fracturing
the Internet! 
ALSO, visit http://www.TLDlobby.com.

--
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