Re: [ga] Does someone knows the REAL rules?

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Alex and all assembly members,

  Well Alex, you presently surprised me with this response post.
Well done indeed!  I do have a few minor comments to some of your
response here.  (See below)

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Dear fellow GA members,
>
> I for one appreciate Joanna and Bill's work very much
> and hope that the GA has the courage to look at the
> Best Practices proposal in an unbiased way.

  I do as well and many of our members that are currently blocked
from actively participating on the GA also found this work from Bill
and Joanna very positive and much in line with how we make
our decisions presently.

>
>
> I know that some if not many GA members are extremely
> wary of unconfirmed new rules and self-styled officers
> (and rightly so!). What Bill and Joanna have been and
> are doing is a voluntary, inofficial contribution, and
> I haven't seen them claim that their proposal *are*
> the new list rules.

  Yes, and there needs to be new list rules.  This is one of the
most important issues that needs to be addressed and decide upon
by a vote of the DNSO GA.  We found this one of only a few areas
in this proposal from Bill and Joanna a shortcoming...

> But there are, in my view, some
> good reasons to at least try out the proposed Best
> Practices when all documents are ready.
>
> Personally, I think the GA status quo is lamentable,
> measured in terms of the contribution it makes to the
> overall ICANN policy process. There are numerous
> reasons for that which have been mentioned over and
> over again, but the lack of a formalized way of
> turning vague suggestions into a useful motion is
> certainly one of them.

  A number of useful motions have been proposed and seconded,
yet were denied by the Chair(s) on a number of occasions.  Also
the fact that it has been stated by the secretariat that the COST of
making up a ballot is to high for Motions on issues can be voted
upon.  We find this difficult to believe.  As such, any process or
proposal of a process must include the ability for GA members to
vote on motions on issues.

> The Best Practices documents
> is /one/ possible approach, and it may turn out to
> be too simple, too complicated, too slow, too
> shallow etc. We will not know unless we dare to put
> it to the test.

  Very true.

>
>
> William X Walsh wrote on 15.08.01, 21:22:15:
> > I consider constant attempts to rephrase issues being discussed here
> > into "BP-eze" to be very close to what Jefsey is referring to here.
>
> William, if by "BP-eze" you mean that you dislike the
> overuse of CAPITAL LETTER WORDS, we are on the same
> page. (Capital Initial look far more elegant. ;))
> We have the problem that there currently are no
> "real" rules when it comes to developing a motion.
> The answer to that is: Let's define the requirements
> and process for developing a motion.

  I am sure that this can be accomplished with Bill and Joanna's
proposal.  I am also sure that even without such a process to
develop Motions, that motions can be put forward, seconded,
and than debated with potential amendments suggested, also
seconded, and than each voted upon on it's merits, not whom makes
the motion or amendments.  This is where Joanna in her earlier post
regarding ego's has hampered this assembly.  I think she is quite right
on that score.

> Let's have
> definitions for the most important terms. And when
> we have them, let's see if they work or not. If they
> seem to work, let's adopt them and e.g. when referring
> to a motion that fulfils such requirements, we can
> speak of a Motion. I think we desperately need some
> shared definitions of what we are doing here. Just
> like the RFCs often say
>  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL",
>  "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY",
>  and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted
>  as described in RFC 2119.
>
> Finally, I hope that anyone who finds or writes
> documents which seem to be equally clear and suitable
> as guideline comes forward. I know there are other
> sets of rules, e.g. Mark Langston's modified version of
> Robert's Rules of Order at
>   http://www.bitshift.org/archives/rror.shtml
> Frankly, I think it is a bit too complicated (including
> the wording, considering the international context),
> and the question of time limits (which seems
> especially important in our context) is not solved
> in a satisfactory way.

  Well one has to decide what is satisfactory or a "Satisfactory Way".
That can only be determined by a vote of the GA members.

>
>
> What I've seen from the Best Practices proposal makes
> me want to see it work in practice. I cannot see how
> such a test could cause further damage which isn't
> already there in this highly divisive, sometimes
> merciless and aggressive environment.

  Agreed.  Lets set a testing period of say, 3 months...
All in favor say Yes.  Against say No to this testing time frame.

>
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
> --
> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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