Re: [ga] MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi Joanna
>
> The original wording of the motion was:
>
> > 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.
>
> When you objected to that I amended the wording to read:
>
> > All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures, etc. should be
> > debated on GA-RULES.  However, subscribers to GA-RULES may refer
> > issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot or follow such other
> > prescribed procedures that have been adopted by the General Assembly.
>
> You have suggested an alternative form of wording:
>
> > All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures, etc. should be
> > debated on GA-RULES until such time as and ISSUE has risen to the
> > level of requiring a determinative ballot of the General Assembly.
>
> I cannot see how your wording improves on the amendment.  You agree that
> there may be a "determinative ballot of the General Assembly" but you have
> re-introduced a specific *trigger* which the amendment sought to avoid.

Methinks a trigger is necessary to avoid the problem of there being an issue
raised one day, and a full-fledged, flag-draped, sound-the-trumpets motion
the next.  Motions have the characteristic of seeming to call for a vote, and
when motions are popped out prematurely, before the matter has even been
discussed, then we have people who favor the motion complaining that there
is no vote -- i.e., what is known as "railroading" commences, rather than a
calm, deliberate discussion or debate on the issue itself.  What I suggest is
that this thing be shelved for a day or two until the basic mechanisms of
the Best Practice are posted on ga-rules (where, of course, this very
discussion here should be), which should be today or tomorrow. Then
there will be something with meat to it.

I might add that the motion here being discussed would be entirely
consistent with the Best Practices if it were worded instead as

    "subscribers to GA-RULES may refer issues to the full GA for a
    determinative ballot in accordance with prescribed procedures
    that have been adopted by the General Assembly,"

It is assumed in that language, of course, that procedures such as those
set out in the Best Practices would in fact have been adopted.   My
concurrence in principle with Patrick's motion remains intact.

Bill Lovell


--
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