Re: [ga] Moving Discussion -- Call on the Chair

[Eric Dierker <eric@HI-TEK.COM>]

This is another stinking gross attempt at end running the rules.  Corliss you
are a menace.  I will never again believe in your naiveté.  You bend and
manipulate the rules to your whim and arbitrarily support their enforcement when
it suits you all the while claiming "who me? - It must be mean old bad Danny".
Well your goose is being cooked in the TLDA and we might as well start a roast
here.  I will now make it a bad habit to call you on your bull----.  If Touton
is not paying you then you are missing a paycheck bro!
Sincerely,

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 16:50:45 -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> > I might be missing something here, but where are the "current procedures"
> > mentioned above codified?  Further, if the Chair was to personally accept
> the
> > proposed policy, would that make it a de facto GA institution?
>
> Dear Sotiris
>
> I'm sorry that you missed the subtle interplay there.  Danny is the Chair
> and I am the Alternate Chair.  I do not have any power at all except calling
> myself Alternate Chair.  In particular I don't want to tell Danny, or
> anybody else, what to do.  I can suggest, perhaps even urge, but not more
> than that.
>
> Since you are asking for my thoughts, they are these:
>
> (1)    The DNSO Secretariat has *spiked* this motion before Danny even got
> near to accepting it.  Any discussion about the DNSO Secretariat or voting
> procedures would be a diversion.  Even mentioning these issues will lead
> somebody to talk about them.  Catch-22.
>
> (2)    Danny has not paid much attention to this motion possibly because he
> has a life to lead.  I would appreciate his personal endorsement.  Danny
> could also bring pressure to bear on the DNSO Names Council.  With his
> support, the motion will at least get past the DNSO Secretariat.
>
> (3)    An alternative, already suggested, is to use Joop's polling booth for
> the purpose.  Again, any discussion about voting procedures should be
> conducted on the GA-RULES list.  For example, how should people register to
> vote?  We really need to take things a step at a time.
>
> (4)    Once the motion is accepted by Danny, the GA could self-organize
> enough to transfer debate to GA-RULES voluntarily.  Some might refuse and we
> could discuss what to do about that if it happens.  At least, those who
> refuse would be seen as acting contrary to the will of the majority.
>
> (5)    Even without a vote, the current rules allow the list monitors to
> adjudicate whether an issue is off-topic.  Should the motion be accepted by
> the majority -- and the Chair -- the list monitors might be asked to apply
> the rule accordingly.  Again, discussion of this issue is best left to
> GA-RULES.
>
> Let me give you an example.  Bill Lovell exceeded his daily limit and
> provoked a diversion on that subject.  I said I had exceeded my daily limit.
> Immediately several people lodged complaints.  And so it goes.  I have said
> before it is a Catch-22.   I can't believe people on this list don't
> understand that.
>
> This sort of diversionary tactic is exactly what the motion is designed to
> prevent.  Can we not wait until Danny indicates his assent before getting
> into details?  The motion is clear enough on its face.
>
> Enough prevarication, Sotiris, do you support the motion YES or NO ?
>
> 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-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