Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

["Kevin J. Connolly" <connollyk@rspab.com>]

"Roberto Gaetano" <ga_chair@hotmail.com> 02/08/01 12:56PM wrote:

>Jefsey,
>>
>>Thank you Harald for this.
>>May be could you update us on what is pending and we should vote on?
>
>
>The question Harald was referring to is the following.
>The GA has voted (majority vote) in Marina del Rey for a direct election of 
>the GA Chairman. This implies a change in the ICANN bylaws.
>My idea, as written a couple of times to the GA, is that a formal motion on 
>the list with a formal vote (on the list) will have more strength, and the>
 motion transmitted to the Board will have more weight.
>
>So Harald was hoping to see a debate on this, and then a motion to vote.
>
>By the way, it is still not too late ;>)
>
>Regards
>Roberto

One of the recurring problems in trying to get substantive work done online is the disconnect between free form discussions and the formal consideration of motions. Listserv is fine for the former and it needs lots of work on infratructural matters for the latter. This was a major headache, for example, in Working Group C, wherein the group never adopted rules that made it clear when a motion was under consideration; what the wording of the motion was; and when and how to move the consideration to a vote.

I suggest that this topic needs to be considered, and in a fairly structured manner.

My suggestion is that we form a working group to prepare a set of rules that make it clear how the GA can formally consider and ultimately adopt substantive resolutions. Once the Working Group has shredded itself, we will have a multiplicity of proposals, from which the GA may ultimately bootstrap and adopt a proposal as the governing set of rules. My own suggestion on the substance of the rules is that we make it fairly easy for a "majority" to amend the rules, because otherwise we will spend the rest of our lives trying to create the perfect procedural rules.

THEN we can introduce, debate, and vote on the adoption of a resolution inviting ICANN to allow the GA to govern itself. AFTER which we can take up the problem of how to get ICANN to agree with the resolution, as well as a few other critical issues dealing with the constituencies and the Board.

Kevin J. Connolly
Attorney and Counselor at Law
Robinson Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman, LLP
1290 Sixth Aveue of the Americas
New York, NY 10104
212-541-1066/fax 212-541-1346
This note is not legal advice. If it were legal advice, it would come with an invoice.

Live, like there's no tomorrow.....
     Love, like you've never been hurt.....
          And dance, like no one's watching.



*******************************************************************************
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
*******************************************************************************
--
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