[ga-rules] call to the order

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

I think that at this stage I should call to the order:

Danny Younger
Patrick Corliss
Williams X. Walsh
Jeff Williams
Joana Lane
Thomas Roessler
and several others, including me

for sabotaging the sub-list process and porting to the GA a matter of 
obvious interest only to the ga-rules. I therefore bring it back to the 
ga-rules list where it belongs before the daily posting number of some 
become outrageous to the GA tranquility

Actually this is not a joke. I happen to think that the sub-list system, as 
articially used and maintained by some, is only a way to kill the GA. So it 
is IMO legitimate to send that go-to-no-where discussion to such a 
go-to-no-where sub-list.

For the records you may see that the GA mostly spend last year voting on 
the way it should vote. Then the NC tried to make them vote about the way 
they voted on how they would vote. But that did not fully worked. Old 
timers who survived it may recall.

Now that Danny has made no-voting a national sport, the discussion is about 
how to make sure no one will vote because they will not talk, because they 
are not on the same sub-list, because they have been lead to hate the guy 
they could have voted for, because they haveinvented different motinos 
procedures, etc...

Pease, enjoy now. You are atthe proper place. Still 5 posts today to go!
Jefsey


On 21:51 09/07/01, Joanna Lane said:
>I will block this motion for the reasons that it includes the wording
>"However, subscribers to GA-RULES may, by consensus, refer issues to the
>full GA for a determinative ballot." This statement describes a process by
>which an issue is moved to a determinative ballot from the sub-list to the
>GA. Of itself, the process by which a determinative ballot is enacted has
>not been discussed or agreed and flies in the face of a document (which
>Patrick himself has been copied offlist), which sets out Best Practices for
>processes.
>
>Now either Patrick is so dumb as to not realize what he is doing, or he
>deliberately sabotaging something he purports to support. Either way, this
>motion sets about changing rules in the most naive way. Sorry Peter, but you
>should take a look at the Best Practices Document before jumping into this
>one.
>
>Regards,
>Joanna
>
>on 7/9/01 1:51 PM, Peter de Blanc at pdeblanc@usvi.net wrote:
>
> > I second PatricK's motion!
> >
> > Peter de Blanc
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Patrick
> > Corliss
> > Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 12:48 PM
> > To: Peter de Blanc
> > Cc: [ga]
> > Subject: [ga] Moving Discussion Off the GA List
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 10:58:01 -0400, Peter de Blanc wrote:
> > Subject: RE: [ga] Motion to the Chair
> >
> >> I agree with these comments. If only there were some way to move the
> >> discussion of "procedures", and "suspensions" off the "ga" list, it
> >> _might_ be possible to discuss issues like UDRP, LDRP, .ORG and other,
> >
> >> perhaps more significant business.
> >>
> >> Personally, I devote a lot of time to the ICANN process. I consider it
> >
> >> a responsibility to read the "ga" list- but my patience is wearing
> >> thin, and it is taking too much time out of each day for what I regard
> >
> >> as "non-productive" communications.
> >
> > Thank you, Peter.  It has been my view from day one, expressed many
> > times, that the substantive debate too easily gets diverted by
> > discussion of rules and procedures.  It was for that very purpose that I
> > asked Danny to set up [ga-rules] and other special purpose lists.
> >
> > Since then I have found it very difficult to persuade some people to
> > comply. My requests to do so have prompted further debate on rules,
> > lists and powers of your elected persons.  Note I even need to be
> > careful saying "officials" or "representatives" as this would
> > undoubtedly spark more debate.
> >
> > So we have come to a fork in the road.  I cannot press the issue
> > further. We must all agree to discuss procedural issues on [ga-rules].
> > We have discussed enough.  I therefore propose the following motion for
> > a vote of the full General Assembly.
> >
> > (1)    The GA list should be reserved for substantive issues relating to
> > DNS
> > policy.  All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures,
> > etc. should be debated on GA-RULES.  However, subscribers to GA-RULES
> > may, by consensus, refer issues to the full GA for a determinative
> > ballot.
> >
> > (2)    The list rules should be amended to include the exact wording of
> > (1)
> > above.
> >
> > I would appreciate this being agreed to.  Do I have a second?
> >
> > Best regards
> > Patrick Corliss
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" 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