Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

On 2002-05-03 07:26:33 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:

>You, on the other hand, are insisting, in a rather high handed and 
>autocratic fashion, that nobody may speak, ask for a show of  
>hands, suggest a schedule, or even have a general discussion on  
>this issue (and presumably any other) unless a formal Motion is  
>put on the table first.

I'm sorry, Joanna - but this is garbage.  Re-read the message you've 
replied to.  Read the third paragraph.  What, precisely, didn't you  
understand about the words "put it on the table for discussion"?

So, once again, let me outline the process I'd expect to be followed 
just in case there was a misunderstanding:

1. Idea for a motion.  Discussion of that idea, drafting of a _real_ 
motion.

2. Support.  (May have been demonstrated during the discussion.)

3. Vote.

We currently have an idea (draft, proposal, whatever you want to  
call it) for a motion.  Now, please discuss the topic at hand: 
Should the GA make the comment Jamie has suggested?  Why?  Why not? 
My contribution to that discussion is on the table.  My questions 
about the proposal are on the table, too. 

It's up to those who support the proposal to take up this 
discussion.

As I said before, a lot of times: You are at the beginning of step  
one now.  Please start discussion on the substance of the motion.   
Don't do straw polls at this point of time, don't demand votes at  
this point of time.

-- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
--
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