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:

> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > 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!
>
> Which, in fact, Jeff, demonstrates that you did not understand a word
> I said.  None of the necessary precedent for an intelligent vote on a
> precisely defined issue has yet occurred.

  I understood you perfectly Bill.  But thank you for you concern anyway.
That is why I suggested that we get a ballot prepared for the .BIZ motion...
The debate has already taken place.  I didn't think I needed to remind
you of that.  So again, hence my previous response....

>
>
> Bill Lovell
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > (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
>
> --
> 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

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