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

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

There's no rule that I know of that allows this, but I believe it should
work just like the law does in general: if there is no rule to cover
doing some thing, then one creates the rule by doing the thing. I am
therefore soaking up one of Earl's allotted posts, for which I thank
him kindly.

With that out of the way, I just want to add that there are means, the
comments of Joe Kelsey to the contrary, for enforcing the posting of
messages on non-policy issues on non-policy sublists, e.g., in the
present case on ga-rules, rather than on policy-oriented ga.  One of
the ways in which one can earn a suspension is by posting things that
are off topic, as Jim Fleming recently learned.  If a subject matter has
been decided to be treated on a sublist, then postings on the subject
to ga would automatically be off-topic -- besides the fact that of
necessity they would be on subjects not falling within overall internet
policy, but rather some internal GA thing, or they would not have been
put on a sublist in the first place.  Earn enough "demerits" by insisting
on posting to ga instead of the sublist to which the topic has been
assigned and one should likewise be suspended.

(Incidentally, if it were lacking before, that is how the "rule" about
creating sublists came about -- Patrick Corliss "did the thing" that
seemed needed to be done, and if enough people accept it, as now
seems generally to be the case (excluding some last ditch holdouts),
then "the thing" becomes a rule having the authority of the people
concerned, and that is all the authority that is, or ever would be,
needed.  People run the rules; rules don't run people.)

The latest on the "rush to vote" will become apparent when the first
part of the Best Practices is PUBLISHed (another defined term).
It will be so PUBLISHed hopefully tomorrow evening, and of course
on ga-rules, but a notice of such publication will be put up on ga, in
which cordial invitation to everyone to go take a peek and join the
DISCUSSION on that topic will be made.

And I might also add that this process needs no by-your-leave from
the NC, the Chair, or anyone else. When a topic has been raised on
a sublist, which anyone has a right to do at any time, and bunches
of people then join in on the issue and start hammering it into some
kind of proper form, then those people have actually formed, and in
operational terms define, a de facto working group, which they can
then put together however they want (e.g., elect a "chair" or "head"
or "discussion leader" or whatever, etc.). And that process likewise
needs no "by-your-leave" from anyone, whether the NC, the Chair,
or anyone else. That is what "self-organize" means.

What it does NOT mean is what the General Assembly has done so
far: designate some collection of "offices" (Chair, monitors, etc.),
fill those offices with hapless souls who have no idea what they
are letting themselves in for, and then spend one's time throwing
brick bats at those hapless souls while whining that nothing ever
gets done, and complaining that no one will act and no one will
give us permission to do whatever.  It is no wonder that the NC
and the Board look askance at whatever comes out of the GA.

So we take the bold step of self-organizing, with no "by-your-
leave" from anyone -- if we want to take up a topic on sublist X,
we do so. If we want to adopt a procedure wherein a topic must
have run some gauntlet of DISCUSSION and DEBATE before it
can be advanced as a MOTION, we can do so. ICANN has
set up certain suborganizations, of which DNSO is one, and within
DNSO and the NC  they can also set up rules, which they have. I've
not yet examined proposed restructurings of ICANN, but if those
tend to improve these functions, more power to them. But what
goes on within the GA is the business only of the GA. The NC
is supposed to support GA votes through the DNSO voting
procedure, but if it whines out, saying it doesn't have the money,
etc., etc., well, the GA can do it on its own.  Full approval of
something by the GA is all the authority that the GA needs or
could ever want -- neither the DNSO, the NC, nor anyone else,
has any veto power over what the GA decides it wants to be its
"advisory opinion," or how it may have arrived at that opinion.
Such a veto is effected, however, by the notion that we have to
go to any such body for permission to do anything.

(Imagine this story:  "The Names Council of the Domain Name
Support Organization of ICANN was surprised to learn today that
a vote on XXX -- a vote that the Names Council had refused to
authorize, and for which it supplied no assistance or operating funds --
has nevertheless been held by the General Assembly of ICANN,
and it was voted nearly unanimously that the Names Council
members shall all be expelled to Outer Siberia."  I don't think
the NC wants to see any such story on CNN.   If ICANN in
general and the NC want to play politics, well, we can play
that game, too. And we will win, because there are more of us.)

Power to the people.

Bill Lovell
 

Earl Heather wrote:

just wondering if I might proxy my 5 posts (sorry 4 remaining posts)
to Mr. Lovell,who is much more coherent than myself today
regarding concerns about process with this motion - I'm real curious
what he will say next regarding this rush to vote ;>)

Earl

>
>
> Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 14:25:22 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Why don't you follow your own advice and take this discussion (now
> > argument)
> > > to ga-rules?
> >
> > You are being difficult.  It is a question of legitimacy.  Nothing agreed on
> > [ga-rules] has any affect UNLESS and UNTIL the GA says it does.
> >
> > Which is exactly what I am trying vainly to do.
>
> And you will continue to work in vain until you recognize that before one
> goes to the GA for "approval" of anything, one has to have something
> of substance to take there.  That has to be worked out first, and if you
> start out going to the GA for a vote on some chimeric thing that has
> little if any existence, you'll not get it.  The subject matter of a vote
> has first to be defined, and it is only through discussion on ga-rules
> (in this particular case), without any "by your leave" from anyone,
> that the matter can be sufficiently defined to be worthy of a vote.
> So just move all this to ga-rules and we'll get somewhere.
>
> (Today I might have exceeded my 5/day limit; if so, my apologies,
> and the monitor can commence to beat me about the head and
> shoulders.)
>
> Bill Lovell
>
> >
> >
> > 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
>
> --
> Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
> to the reader may possibly be explained at:
> "WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
> GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>

--
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

--
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm