Re: [ga] Procedure.

[eric@hi-tek.com]

Let us get some stuff down about procedure.

Corruption occurs, that is just life.
Good procedure holds back the above fact.
The Battle of Hastings probably launched the most current well working
legal system.
We have not perfected it and we still must work at it constantly both as
drafters and as critics.

We have no process in the GA for this kind of vote.
TR killed a movement to enact the great best practices.

However phrased there will be overwhelming support for a "rebid".
People did not join up to support the current administration of ICANN, no
way!
Any dilution of that major support for "rebid" will be known for what it
is - TR fraud.

AS you are doing a great job of not doing your job here.  You have not
drafted a document that is supported by a large group but have purposely
obfuscated the obvious will of your constituents in favor of your BoD
masters. (buddy I have seen enough around here to tell you that you will
never get what you think you will get through ICANN because you do not
belong with "those kind of people")

The procedure should be; lets have a damned vote!

And the vote should be simple and carry an undeniable message

I want a rebid for the ICANN contract with the US DoC -(yes or no)

All the rest of these politics are just that and it is a bunch of crap.

Sincerely,
Eric

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Ted,
>
> At 13.05.2002 09:37, t byfield wrote:
> >thomas, this is a really strange -- and totally unnecessary -- method
> >to announce so suddenly. what *should* be a yes/no/abstain VOTE ON a
> >resolution is, by these rules, transformed into a COMPETITION BETWEEN
> >resolutions. the 'suddenness' of this method is a by-product of the
> >lack of structure that has characterized this non-process so far. and
> >i won't even get into the 50% rule, which strikes me as an effort to
> >determine the outcome by adopting an arbitrarily complex method.
>
> Actually, if you have read the GA list, you will have noticed
> that this has already been debated.
> Thomas offered two alternatives: Preferential voting (as used
> for person elections, which probably isn't as suitable for
> such issue votes) and "one vote per member plus 50% rule".
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00712.html
>
> Jonathan Weinberg proposed a different approach.
> >My suggestion: Allow members to vote yes/no on *each* resolution,
> >and then see if any of the resolutions capture a substantial
> >majority of those voting.
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00736.html
>
> To which James Love replied:
> >I had not studied the specifics of the proceedure closely, and the
> >system set out by Jonathan Weinberg makes the most sense.
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00748.html
>
> About the 50 percent rule which you call "arbitrarily complex":
> I cannot understand what you mean by that. If neither motion
> is approved by a majority of the voters, you will surely
> not consider them approved by the GA? Every motion obviously
> needs more Yes than No votes and abstentions!
>
> 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

--
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