Re: [ga] Moving Discussion Off the GA List I'll second that

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

I will block this motion for the reasons that it includes the wording
"However, subscribers to GA-RULES may, by consensus, refer issues to the
full GA for a determinative ballot." This statement describes a process by
which an issue is moved to a determinative ballot from the sub-list to the
GA. Of itself, the process by which a determinative ballot is enacted has
not been discussed or agreed and flies in the face of a document (which
Patrick himself has been copied offlist), which sets out Best Practices for
processes.

Now either Patrick is so dumb as to not realize what he is doing, or he
deliberately sabotaging something he purports to support. Either way, this
motion sets about changing rules in the most naive way. Sorry Peter, but you
should take a look at the Best Practices Document before jumping into this
one.

Regards,
Joanna

on 7/9/01 1:51 PM, Peter de Blanc at pdeblanc@usvi.net wrote:

> I second PatricK's motion!
> 
> Peter de Blanc
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Patrick
> Corliss
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 12:48 PM
> To: Peter de Blanc
> Cc: [ga]
> Subject: [ga] Moving Discussion Off the GA List
> 
> 
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 10:58:01 -0400, Peter de Blanc wrote:
> Subject: RE: [ga] Motion to the Chair
> 
>> I agree with these comments. If only there were some way to move the
>> discussion of "procedures", and "suspensions" off the "ga" list, it
>> _might_ be possible to discuss issues like UDRP, LDRP, .ORG and other,
> 
>> perhaps more significant business.
>> 
>> Personally, I devote a lot of time to the ICANN process. I consider it
> 
>> a responsibility to read the "ga" list- but my patience is wearing
>> thin, and it is taking too much time out of each day for what I regard
> 
>> as "non-productive" communications.
> 
> Thank you, Peter.  It has been my view from day one, expressed many
> times, that the substantive debate too easily gets diverted by
> discussion of rules and procedures.  It was for that very purpose that I
> asked Danny to set up [ga-rules] and other special purpose lists.
> 
> Since then I have found it very difficult to persuade some people to
> comply. My requests to do so have prompted further debate on rules,
> lists and powers of your elected persons.  Note I even need to be
> careful saying "officials" or "representatives" as this would
> undoubtedly spark more debate.
> 
> So we have come to a fork in the road.  I cannot press the issue
> further. We must all agree to discuss procedural issues on [ga-rules].
> We have discussed enough.  I therefore propose the following motion for
> a vote of the full General Assembly.
> 
> (1)    The GA list should be reserved for substantive issues relating to
> DNS
> policy.  All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures,
> etc. should be debated on GA-RULES.  However, subscribers to GA-RULES
> may, by consensus, refer issues to the full GA for a determinative
> ballot.
> 
> (2)    The list rules should be amended to include the exact wording of
> (1)
> above.
> 
> I would appreciate this being agreed to.  Do I have a second?
> 
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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