RE: [ga] Proposal for moving forward

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

I strongly disagree with that. That's precisely what has gotten us
(collectively)into this mess, in the first place. I think that we need to
record a vote, period. At least, a poll result.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:weinberg@mail.msen.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 11:51 AM
> To: wsl@cerebalaw.com
> Cc: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] Proposal for moving forward
> 
> 
> Bill,
> 
>          I think you misunderstood my earlier message (below).   My 
> suggestion wasn't that we need consensus before we can vote.  
> Rather, it 
> was that if we have consensus (as determined by the chair), 
> we don't *need* 
> to vote.
> 
> Jon
> 
> 
> At 10:19 AM 7/17/2001 -0700, you wrote:
> >I concur on the allowance of more time for discussing the issue, even
> >though I believe it now to be a foregone conclusion, and have given
> >my "yeah" on the poll.  However, I think there is a fundamental flaw
> >in the thinking of just about everyone here.
> >
> >The premise seems to be that there must already have been reached
> >what looks like a "consensus" approval of an Issue before 
> there can be
> >a vote on it. If that were the case, why have the Vote? I 
> don't believe
> >that Votes (i.e., an individual voting event, not your vote 
> or mine) are,
> >ever have been (except here), or should be, merely a rubber stamping
> >process on an Issue that has already been decided.  What justifies a
> >Vote is not pre-approval of the outcome, but rather the existence of
> >an Issue on which there has been expressed wide spread interest, and
> >involving a matter of real substance.
> >
> >There will come the day when some such Issue will be roundly opposed,
> >and the apparent "consensus" will be that whatever it is should never
> >happen.  That circumstance would be just as proper for the 
> carrying out
> >of a Vote as the opposite -- the people who oppose some proposition
> >have as much right to get their views expressed definitively 
> in a Vote as
> >do those who support any such proposition.
> >
> >There will be other circumstances in which the outcome of a 
> Vote could
> >not be predicted in advance. And that, of course, is the fundamental
> >reason why Votes are carried out in the first place. This 
> notion of only
> >agreeing to have a Vote when it appears that the "yeahs" 
> have it is really
> >quite a perversion of the whole concept of democracy.
> >
> >Bill Lovell
> >
> >Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> >>On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 13:12:26 +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:
> >> >      it seems there is general agreement with the spirit
> >> >        of Patrick's motion. Joanna Lana has raised concerns
> >> >        about the wording, but it seems nobody has argued
> >> >        that procedural issues /should/ be discussed on the
> >> >        GA main list instead of GA-rules.
> >> >        Why don't we simply agree to *follow* the rules until
> >> >        such time when we have the resources and time to vote
> >> >        on it and use the voting mechanism instead for those
> >> >        issues which need to be voted on *now*? (I assume we will
> >> >        not agree on a UDRP Task Force representative by 
> debate...)
> >> >        So, if you agree, *DON'T* reply to this mail on the
> >> >        main GA list:
> >> >        [snip]
> >>
> >>          Since Alexander's call for quiet doesn't seem to 
> have worked . . .
> >>I think the emphasis -- on all sides -- on taking this 
> motion to a formal
> >>vote is misplaced.  We've so far managed to avoid a 
> knock-down, drag-out
> >>debate on the structure and functioning of the ga (should 
> it act like an
> >>IETF working group? like a national parliament?), but it 
> seems to me that
> >>in general, it's the job of the Chair to determine when the 
> group has
> >>reached rough consensus on a matter like this one, so that 
> we can move
> >>on.  The choice of exactly how he makes the determination 
> should be largely
> >>up to him (straw votes can be helpful sometimes, but other times
> >>not).  This motion has only been on the mailing list for a 
> couple of days
> >>now, which is too soon to make a judgment of rough 
> consensus. Once a week
> >>has gone by, though, if the "hum" remains as one-sided as 
> it's been so far,
> >>I think it would be fully appropriate for Danny to conclude that the
> >>proposal is adopted by rough consensus.
> >>
> >>Jon
> >>
> >>--
> >>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>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/>http://whatis.techtarget.com/
> >GLOSSARY: 
> ><http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm>http://www.icann.o
rg/general/glossary.htm 
>
>

--
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