Re: [ga] Proposal for moving forward

[Sotiris Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

I am with Roeland on this one.  There must be a measurement.  This is not a
seigneurial assembly...

Soitiris Sotiropoulos

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> 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

--
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