Re: [ga-rules] Procedures and Process

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Joanna and all,

Joanna Lane wrote:

> Yes, finally...:-)
>
> Do you also support the idea of submission rounds as described in
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-rules/Arc00/msg00141.html ?
>
> Again, these would not preclude submissions outside given dates, but would
> set goals to improve the consensus building process and to discourage new
> motions and policy documents being presented at the 11th hour before an
> ICANN meeting.

  I think it is and has been pretty much agreed upon that presenting motions
in the 11th hour before and ICANN meeting should be done in any event
where and when possible, which is most of the time. I am not sure that
all parts of your suggestion (Archived URL E-Mail) is how that can or
should be achieved.  My staff and I are reviewing it presently and will
have a appropriate response which I will post tomorrow.

>
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
> on 6/25/01 6:55 PM, William X. Walsh at william@userfriendly.com wrote:
>
> > Hello Joanna,
> >
> > Monday, June 25, 2001, 3:38:59 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:
> >> We are not too far apart on this issue, but for reasons clarified in my
> >> previous post today at
> >> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-rules/Arc00/msg00141.html, I think there
> >> should be some minimum guidelines for best practices.
> >
> >> That would not be a rule, but an indication of what can be reasonably be
> >> expected from a proposer, and in return, when it is anticipated that the GA
> >> would respond and how.
> >
> >> I am not talking about brainstorming, such as this exchange may be
> >> described. I am talking about those who have a rough idea that has already
> >> been received with cautious optimism. I, for one, want some assurance that
> >> if I then put in the time and produce a decent proposal, this will be given
> >> the attention it deserves, and not shot down by a knee jerk reaction from
> >> one or two disruptors with a few posts to spare, from which it is difficult
> >> to recover.
> >
> > I've been real hesitant about this thread, because I honestly believe
> > that consensus cannot be "ruled" into existence.
> >
> > But provided these "guidelines" are developed as a "best practices"
> > setup, rather than a hard and fast rule, and they are clearly marked
> > at that (presumably with this being at the discretion of the Chair),
> > then I support this effort and will gladly contribute to it.
> >
> > Are we on the same page, Joanna?
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-rules@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-rules" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-rules@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-rules" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html