Re: [ga] Time line for a vote; procedures.
Under the Best Practices (BP) procedure, once it is agreed upon that an Issue is ripe for treatment, as evidenced, e.g., by the results of a Poll, then the "floor" is open for Proposals. Since the Poll seems to be heading towards keeping going, when that result is announced James Love can re-enter his "Motion" as a Proposal, or in tracking this whole bit Joanna could simply recognize the one James already posted as constituting a Proposal. Through Debate, that Proposal could end up being amended, or alternative Proposals could be advanced. If more than one Proposal were finalized (and hence Accepted), and it was clear that neither one negated the other, both could be Recognized as Motions to be Debated. (Conflicting Proposals would have to be run through a Poll.) Otherwise, both would proceed on separate Ballots. A person favoring A over B would vote on both, with a "Yes" for A and a "No" for B -- there would be no vote splitting. The procedure you suggest, Jonathan, is exactly what Best Practices provides -- see esp. http://www.cerebalaw.com/BPIVial.htm. With regard to there being "no winner" as you suggest below, that result is fully anticipated by BP. It is a mechanism either for reaching and indeed demonstrating consensus, or showing that none exists. (Your suggestion I would say is well taken, but one of the reasons for establishing a fixed procedure such as BP is to preclude changes in the process in the course of any procedure -- in ga@dnso I've seen arbitrary changes made in mid-stream, and no one knew what the rules were. That "the ga has no procedure" has been expressed innumerable times. Your suggestion happens to square precisely with BP, so no change is involved with the process initiated by Joanna, but heaven only knows what other suggestions might show up. (And ALL, of course, would be welcome, but maybe to be implemented in the NEXT trial run of BP. This run is intended not only to see whether consensus can be reached on the exact wording of a Motion ultimately to be submitted to the GA Chair for entry into the mechanisms of ICANN/DNSO, but also to see how well BP as presently written can handle an issue such as the one at hand. The discussion I've seen so far has been delightfully chaotic, which is expressive of a democracy, but today I received a Ballot in the mail for an election here in Oregon -- a more rowdy outfit is hard to find! -- and even here the rules are fixed.) Bill (I think that's five) Lovell Jonathan Weinberg wrote: Pine.BSI.4.21.0205041821390.18493-100000@conch.msen.com">On Sat, 4 May 2002, Thomas Roessler wrote:I would suggest that the ballot should be opened for several possible
|