Re: [ga-rules] Re: Definition of Motions & Procedures

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Dear Joanna,

Harald has some good points here but they should not be *show stoppers*.  All
problems of net timing can be addressed through advanced notice so that I can
know to set my alarm and get up at three in the morning to vote, or just
participate.  The locale of the ICANN meetings and the resulting timing does not
thwart on line realtime participation because it is known in advance. My work in
SouthEast Asia is right now closing for the day and I look forward to a great
sunrise here in San Diego California - we can adapt.

Roberts Rules of Order work just fine on the net.  If you have trouble believing
me buy some stock and participate in your SEC mandated type corporate meetings.
The church example is very good.  A group of lay ministers I work with use it on
line (however all of us want to accomplish something :-)) and it is easy.

This is very productive work and helpful hints like Harald's here should only be
a tug on the line not a yanking of the rope.

Sincerely,
Eric

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> --On tirsdag, juni 26, 2001 12:48:09 -0400 Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Harald,
> > Something I lifted from the Presbyterian Church General Assembly that
> > might be a good starting point:-
>
> this has a lot in common with the "Roberts Rules of Order" that were an
> active topic of discussion about a year ago on the GA list.
>
> I will make the same comment I made then: That these rules were made for a
> situation in which all the participants were physically present in the same
> room, and where taking a vote on a motion was a 5-minute matter,
> essentially free.
> Only one topic could be discussed at a time, because there was only one
> room in which to speak. Indeed, only one member could speak at a time.
> Misbehaving members could be physically removed from the room (yes, there
> are rules in Roberts for that), and the meeting would end after a "motion
> to adjourn".
>
> In the case of an electronic debate, we have a different set of parameters:
>
> - The committee is "always in session" (until the ML is closed)
> - Participants are spread out over the whole Earth
> - Having multiple conversations is completely possible (at least if your
> mailer does threading)
> - A reasonable e-mail based vote cannot be done in less than 24 hours
> (allowing for earth rotation), and often a week is more appropriate
>
> Especially the last point makes the voting on amendments a quite expensive
> proposition.
> (The pure workload cost of balloting is also an issue - especially if it
> has to be fitted within a fixed secretariat budget. It is not ignorable.)
>
> The "rule of chair", where the chair is charged with finding an appropriate
> text to vote on, is certainly a possibility - but that is what we have, and
> are trying to get away from, I think.
>
> Some specific notes below.
>
> >
> > DEFINITION OF A MOTION:
> > The General Assembly uses voting as an aid to determine consensus. Before
> > it can vote, however, an issue must be advanced (put) and debated. The
> > method by which an idea or proposal is put for consideration is called a
> > motion.
> >
> > A motion may come from a committee or from a member who has been
> > recognized by the Chair. When recognized, the member says, "Chair, I move
> > that _______________________. This becomes the main motion. But, before a
> > motion can be considered by the Assembly, it must have a second.
> >
> > A motion from a committee is assumed to have a second. Once seconded, the
> > motion is put before the Assembly for debate and a vote. The maker of a
> > motion is generally granted the first and last opportunity to speak to it.
>
> Note that this assumes a deterministic speaking order. Not enforceable in
> email.
>
> >
> > DEFINITION OF AN AMENDMENT
> >
> > During the debate on a main motion, a member may propose an amendment. An
> > amendment may change the wording of a main motion, but may not annul its
> > essential point.
> >
> > Once made, a motion to amend must be seconded. If seconded, it will be
> > debated, and at the conclusion of debate a vote will be taken as to
> > whether or not to amend the main motion. If the amendment is defeated,
> > the main motion becomes the business before the Assembly; if the
> > amendment is voted, the amended motion becomes the main motion.
> >
> > Vote on Amendment:
> >
> > If "no" =  main motion is before the assembly
> >
> > If "yes" = amended motion becomes main motion; main motion is before the
> > assembly.
>
> Note that two persons can force a vote here.
> This is a basis for a filibuster attack, as well as expensive.
>
> > DEFINITION OF A SUBSTITUTE MOTION
> >
> > A motion to substitute is like a motion to amend; however, an entirely new
> > text is offered in place of the main motion. After a second, the body will
> > debate the substitute motion, and then vote whether the substitute shall
> > replace the main motion.
> >
> > If it is defeated, the main motion again becomes the business before the
> > Assembly; if it is voted, the substitute motion becomes the main motion.
> >
> > Vote on Substitute Motion:
> >
> > If "no" = main motion is business before the assembly.
> >
> > If "yes" = substitute becomes the main motion; main motion is business
> > before the assembly.
> >
> >
> > DEFINITION OF PREVIOUS QUESTION:
> > When a member, who has been properly recognized by the Chair, moves The
> > Previous Question, it has the effect of bringing the Assembly to an
> > immediate vote.
> >
> > *
> >
> > All debate stops;
> >
> > *
> >
> > The Assembly votes on whether or not to proceed to a vote on the main
> > motion;
> >
> > *
> > If the Previous Question is supported by 2/3 of the members of the
> > Assembly, the main motion is immediately voted upon;
> >
> > *
> >
> > If it fails to receive 2/3 support, the Assembly returns to debating the
> > main motion.
>
> Note that this requires 2 rounds of voting in the straightforward case.
> Also, it allows a reverwse filibuster tactic - move to go to an immediate
> vote when this will clearly not succeed, throwing the debate into disarray.
> >
> >
> > DEFINITION OF POINT OF ORDER
> >
> > When a member thinks that the rules of the assembly are being violated,
> > s/he can make a Point of Order (or "raise a question of order"), calling
> > upon the Moderators for a ruling and an enforcement of the regular rules.
> > Points of Order are normally forwarded offlist to ga-abuse@dnso.org.
> >
> >
> > PROCEDURES - (BASED ON UN MODEL)
>
> I like the concept of a "two phase" model - the difference between the two
> phases in the email context would be that in the first phase, there is a
> topic and no proposal; in the second phase, there is a proposed text.
>
> One could imagine having multiple overlapping discussions where each
> discussion would pass through the two phases - this may be too confusing.
> Or maybe not.
>
> >
> > FIRST SESSION
> >
> > SESSION OBJECTIVES: To exchange general views regarding the substantive
> > issues to be addressed on the topic and to begin to highlight the areas of
> > convergence and divergence within the group.
> >
> > BEST PRACTICES* (not a rule - note 1): Informal setting. Each member will
> > be limited to no more than 5 posts to ensure maximum participation from
> > all members of the General Assembly. Duration: decided by the Organizing
> > Committee.
> >
> > SCOPE OF THE DISCUSSION: The purpose of this session is to provide an
> > opportunity for members of the negotiating bloc to express and exchange
> > general opinions on the topic and to begin to highlight the areas of
> > convergence and divergence within the group. This preparatory work will
> > greatly expedite the work of the negotiating bloc's next session, which
> > will be to prepare formal bloc positions on the Chairıs draft negotiating
> > text.
> >
> > The second session will consist of another negotiating bloc focused
> > specifically on the draft negotiating text.
>
> The concept of "bloc" occurs here for the first time. What does it mean?
>
> >
> > SECOND SESSION - The Process of decision making
> >
> > OBJECTIVES: To highlight concerns, problems and possible proposals related
> > to the topic; to review the Chairıs draft negotiating text and decide on
> > the general and specific amendments that the group wishes to make to the
> > Chairsı text.
> >
> > BEST PRACTICES (not rules): This activity will retain the same
> > configuration and modalities as the first one, described above.
> >
> > SCOPE OF DISCUSSION: Time should be devoted to the review of the Chairsı
> > draft text. The group will proceed paragraph by paragraph and identify:
> > (1) the issues that are problematic to the group as a whole; (2) the
> > perceived gaps in the text; (3) and the possible amendments that will be
> > tabled.
> >
> > At the end of the sessions, members will be asked to provide the Chair
> > with their formal written amendments. These written amendments will then
> > be incorporated into a revised version of the Chairsı text.
> '
>
> Who decides what amendments to incorporate?
> the Chair, the OrgComm or the vote of the assembly?
> see "cost of votes" above....
>
> >
> > ___________________________________________________________
> >
> > Regards,
> > 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

--
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