Re: [ga] Request for a Clarifying Vote

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> > > once we're done with this we can have a third round of motions
> > > trying to undo the second ones, and the only people who'll op-
> > > pose that round will be 'afraid of the truth,' &c, &c.
> > >
<snippage>
>
> absolutely -- and we did. both motions passed.

Agreed - but we must now deal with other motions on the same grounds.

>
> it's pretty funny to see the shrillness with which various people are
> trying to dictate the true meaning of the last vote. (lest i seem too
> parochial, i include [nothing personal, RH]richard henderson's recent
> article on ICANN Watch[1] -- though he seems calmer than some.) these
> self-appointed exegetes do not speak for me, and i don't see much evi-
> dence that they speak for any but a very few others.

>
> it seems to me that some of the main arguments used to oppose jamie's
> motion (institutional 'suicide,' negative if not fatal impact on GA's
> credibility, etc) apply with even greater force in the case of a revi-
> sionist vote. where are those arguments now? for that matter where is
> the leadership of the GA: the last two motions were consolidated into
> one ballot because, in large part, two separate votes would have been
> too much work. ah, but a third vote -- no problem. say...why don't we
> make it *two* separate new votes, ross? you know -- just to be clear.

I completely agree with every single point you raise (well, at least the
ones that I took the time to wrap my head around ;), but the fact that the
GA has exercised some self-determination cannot now be ignored. Motions and
votes must be allowed to be run through the administrative process,
regardless of the impact or suitability of the question. I raised some of
the impacts of this outcome prior to the vote and was largely ignored. It
would be further folly if the GA could not/would not deal with the impact,
which, is as I see it now, that in order for the merit of a motion to be
determined, it must go to a vote.

-rwr

--
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