[ga-rules] Re: [ga] Motion to Condemn the Propsed "theft" of the .BIZtldbyICANN

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

Picking up just quickly here (and jumping into ga-rules where this
belongs), this is from a post of mine of May 20, 2001:

"It's like PROPOSE -- debate the form of a motion; amendments all
over the place -- MOTION (or maybe not) -- debate the substance
of any motion; no amendments -- VOTE."

(And by "VOTE" here I mean to enter into the formal DNSO voting
procedure.)

If "enough" activity occurred within the "PROPOSE" stage, in which some
person had advanced a formal PROPOSAL and then the verbal exchanges
began (possibly accompanied by one or more "polls"), there would or would
not emerge something sufficiently defined and acceptable to be presented as
a motion, and the chair could write one, or ask for one, etc.  Each of these
stages would establish a recognizable "event" that could be one of the
milestones in Joanna's scheduling process. It would avoid the chaos of there
being multiple "motions" that others have "seconded" and urgent calls for a
"vote" on things that were not understood at all.  (I never did figure out what
that whole "9 representatives" bit that cluttered these pages and then faded
away was really all about.)

A systematic process in which the occurrence of vigorous debate is there
for all to see, the formulation therefrom of a definitive position is achieved,
and a final vote on that position that reaches a conclusion is taken, would
add great weight to a claim of "consensus," and never mind all those
numbers.

(Joanna, I'll review your DEFINITIONS later.)

Bill Lovell


Joanna Lane wrote:

> on 6/26/01 9:52 AM, William S. Lovell at wsl@cerebalaw.com wrote:
>
> > The missing element here is that the decision on what now rises to the
> > surface and has become worthy of a motion is made not by the
> > proponents, but by the Chair.  It is the ad hoc generation of multiple
> > motions with various numbers of seconds that creates the chaos. It
> > is then loudly complained that "the Chair didn't act," when in fact all
> > that's on the table is a bunch of competing schemes on whatever, with
> > no discussion at all.  What's needed in your timeline is a set of criteria
> > that will define what is "motion worthy" and what is not. I cannot
> > imagine a Chair, having seen an issue thoroughly discussed, not then
> > asking for a motion, draft one him/herself as a suggestion, or whatever,
> > so as to get to the next part of the DNSO procedure.
>
> Agreed. Harald has already picked this up on the ga-rules list and I have
> just posted some source material there on DEFINITIONS OF MOTIONS and
> PROCEDURES that may or may not help. I feel like I'm rushing between two
> rooms...this should really be on the ga-rules list.
>
>
> > Ordinary democratic traditions do no include a shotgun scatter of scatter-
> > brained notions all vying for position (as motions) at once.  Proponent
> > of scheme X endeavors to rush "motion" X to a vote as soon as possible,
> > which is not a democratic process but rather a scam. The recognition of
> > a "worthy motion" is not time-defined, however, but rather to be defined
> > by its content and the opportunity that has been available to chew over
> > its pros and cons.
>
> Point taken, but our very existence is time defined. It's a choice. Do we
> ignore external deadlines set by the NC, BoD, DoC etc., or work with them?
>
> For me, this is a no-brainer, hence the Organizing Committee would first get
> on top of any situation that presents itself by creating the timeline. Best
> Practices in that process may include provision for a short debate on
> possible adjustments to debating and voting, the number of amendments and
> motions and so on; options that the Committee could recommend to members in
> order for the Assembly to have any possibility of meeting an externally
> imposed deadline effectively. This would be regarded as the fallback
> position and would require a separate vote prior to any debate on the main
> topic, but after the Chair had presented a summary in rough document form of
> opening arguments related to the main issue.
>
> Also, since the ByLaws say that the BoD can make decisions unilaterally when
> exceptional circumstances arise, it seems reasonable that the GA should also
> have a shortcut at its disposal. It has the right to be heard, however
> imperfect the world in which it exists may be with respect to consensus
> building procedures. Anything, and I mean anything, that we can do to
> encourage the BoD to stop making policy decisions by fiat, and to pass
> everything, and I mean everything, through the GA first, has got to be an
> improvement.
>
> >> Get with the plan Bill!
> >
> > Isn't that what we're doing?  :-)
>
> Yes!
> >
> Joanna

--
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm


--
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