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

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

Bill and all,

William S. Lovell wrote:

> 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."

  I agree.  And there is a motion pending presently.  Let's get a
ballot issued and vote on it!

>
>
> (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

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