RE: [ga] Re: [voters] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform, May 2002

["Roberto Gaetano" <ploki_xyz@hotmail.com>]

Gary Osbourne wrote:
>
>At 01:20 PM 24/05/02 +1000, Dassa wrote:
>
>>...The higher level of support for Motion 2 raises
>>  the question as to Motion 1 being appropriate.
>
>Not so much as it raises the question of why adding
>Motion 2, or 3 or 4, was appropriate. -g
>

Insofar Motion 2 better represents the consensus of the GA, because it 
gathered higher percentages of support, it was highly appropriate to present 
it.

Again, if the purpose of the GA is to discuss and to achieve community 
consensus, which is what I do believe, motions that show larger consensus 
are always welcome.
If, OTOH, the GA is seen like a body that has to express majority votes on 
controversial issues, the approach would be different. But then we have to 
be aware that we get onto the slippery slope of "bring in your pals to 
influence the vote", and who knows what this will imply when we will have 
the next vote on whatever subject (WLS?).

This is, in fact, the simple "philosophical" question that the GA has to 
answer: should it be the body that strives to achieve the largest consensus, 
even if this will have the risk of diluting the contents to compromise among 
different interests, or should it be the body who strives to achieve the 
most mediatic result, at the risk of losing share of consensus?

If we have a vote on this ;>) I will go for the former.

Regards
Roberto


_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

--
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