Re: [ga] Motion to Condemn the Propsed "theft" of the .BIZtldbyICANN

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

on 6/26/01 9:52 AM, William S. Lovell at wsl@cerebalaw.com wrote:

> The missing element here is that the decision on what now rises to the
> surface and has become worthy of a motion is made not by the
> proponents, but by the Chair.  It is the ad hoc generation of multiple
> motions with various numbers of seconds that creates the chaos. It
> is then loudly complained that "the Chair didn't act," when in fact all
> that's on the table is a bunch of competing schemes on whatever, with
> no discussion at all.  What's needed in your timeline is a set of criteria
> that will define what is "motion worthy" and what is not. I cannot
> imagine a Chair, having seen an issue thoroughly discussed, not then
> asking for a motion, draft one him/herself as a suggestion, or whatever,
> so as to get to the next part of the DNSO procedure.

Agreed. Harald has already picked this up on the ga-rules list and I have
just posted some source material there on DEFINITIONS OF MOTIONS and
PROCEDURES that may or may not help. I feel like I'm rushing between two
rooms...this should really be on the ga-rules list.
 

> Ordinary democratic traditions do no include a shotgun scatter of scatter-
> brained notions all vying for position (as motions) at once.  Proponent
> of scheme X endeavors to rush "motion" X to a vote as soon as possible,
> which is not a democratic process but rather a scam. The recognition of
> a "worthy motion" is not time-defined, however, but rather to be defined
> by its content and the opportunity that has been available to chew over
> its pros and cons.

Point taken, but our very existence is time defined. It's a choice. Do we
ignore external deadlines set by the NC, BoD, DoC etc., or work with them?

For me, this is a no-brainer, hence the Organizing Committee would first get
on top of any situation that presents itself by creating the timeline. Best
Practices in that process may include provision for a short debate on
possible adjustments to debating and voting, the number of amendments and
motions and so on; options that the Committee could recommend to members in
order for the Assembly to have any possibility of meeting an externally
imposed deadline effectively. This would be regarded as the fallback
position and would require a separate vote prior to any debate on the main
topic, but after the Chair had presented a summary in rough document form of
opening arguments related to the main issue.

Also, since the ByLaws say that the BoD can make decisions unilaterally when
exceptional circumstances arise, it seems reasonable that the GA should also
have a shortcut at its disposal. It has the right to be heard, however
imperfect the world in which it exists may be with respect to consensus
building procedures. Anything, and I mean anything, that we can do to
encourage the BoD to stop making policy decisions by fiat, and to pass
everything, and I mean everything, through the GA first, has got to be an
improvement.


>> Get with the plan Bill!
> 
> Isn't that what we're doing?  :-)

Yes! 
> 
Joanna

--
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