Re: [ga-rules] Re: Consensus

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

Patrick:

This is very helpful, and I shall endeavor to take these comments
into account in drafting the flow chart.

Bill

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 19:29:56 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 08:13:47 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> > > 1) Propose;
> > > 2) Debate the proposal;
> > > 3) Filter out of the debate a form of motion;
> >
> >   The motion the proposal?  I believe once a motion has
> > been presented it should stand as is and debated as is or
> > amendments suggested to change the language or add/subtract
> > some elements contained in the motion if necessary or
> > appropriate.
>
> Hi Jeff
>
> What Bill is saying is that we often start off with some sort of proposal.
> At this stage it is not a formal motion or anything like it.  More a
> "suggestion".
>
> Then there's some debate about the proposal.  If people are interested,
> somebody might come along and formulate the original proposal into some sort
> of formal "motion".
>
> However, you are quite right.  Once a motion gets put "on the table", it
> needs to be debated "as is" unless somebody proposes an amendment.  Normal
> rules of order require than an amendment must be dealt with BEFORE the
> original motion.
>
> Harald's point was that the debate can be fillibustered by people
> continually putting forward amendments.  One response (Joanna's?) was that
> there be a scheduled cut-off point for stopping any further amendments.
> That is drawing a line in the sand somewhere.
>
> An easier way is to require amendments to be seconded.  The Chair can, of
> course, reject any further amendments from the same person/s as this would
> have the effect of amending their own amendment.  However, further, genuine
> amendments should be accepted up to a point.
>
> Alternatively, if the amendment is totally contrary to the original motion,
> you could solve the problem the way I did with Harald on [ga-roots].  That
> was to formulate two opposing motions.  Then, when the motion goes to the
> vote, the list participants could choose either/or.
>
> However, Bill's point is quite valid.  There should be at least some
> preliminary discussion before somebody throws down a hare-brained motion
> which has little or no support.
>
> Should I be acting as Chair, I would adopt that sort of procedure.
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> --
> 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

--
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