Re: [ga] DNSO/GA Blocking and other concerns

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Harald,
We concur on this. The normal way of handling a motion is to have it 
seconded, then acknowledged by the Chair what gives the motion a discussion 
framework. Usually a motion is either accepted by all and there is no need 
for a vote, or there are amendments blocking the vote. The result is that 
the vote never occurs before a long time, as in most a cases a consensus is 
researched conducted by the Chair or a few stakeholders. Not acknowledging 
a motion do not gives it the proper recognition nor the resulting framework.

The result is the mess we went into this week, with the discussion on 
motions to remove topics from the GA ML replaced by the actual discussion 
on parts of these topics. And all of them colliding together. The GA ML 
should actually be quite silent and only concern the 
announcement/discussion of new specialized MLs, the reports of he MLs and 
the votes on the ML propositions.

What you describe in term of practical support is incredibly heavy. Is that 
you did not find a proper tool to handle votes (in that case we 
should  develop them or use Joop's booth) or is this an inappropriate 
policy by the DNSO of by the iCANN? IMHO opinion a vote should be a simple 
matter that could be handled "twice daily" as say the song.

This being an important point for net-democracy, I am interested in working 
on the matter with who wants (we already had an analysis with WXW last 
year. Facts of the life lowered the priority, but the need and some 
resources are still here).
All the best
Jefsey



On 03:43 21/04/01, Harald Tveit Alvestrand said:
>My personal comment on the matter of motions:
>
>A vote by the GA takes a week of wall clock time, and several hours of 
>secretariat time as presently configured. If there is debate about the 
>validity of votes, the time spent could easily go quite high.
>It is not a mechanism we should trivially set in motion, or we will very 
>quickly see "voting weariness" setting in.
>
>In the rules we agreed upon, we gave the chair the sole responsibility to 
>formulate and send out votes; we did not see a better solution at the time.
>
>There might be other possible solutions - for instance, one could say that 
>a petition for a motion, fully formulated and signed by at least 10 
>members, MUST be put before the assembly by the chair. Or this threshold 
>might be too low.
>
>Many of the motions I have seen on the list are what I would call 
>"half-baked" - they are not precise in what they want to achieve, they are 
>not precise in how they are formulated, and they are emphatically not the 
>most useful comment the GA could make into a situation.
>
>If the GA is to spend the resources to go through a vote, I think we need 
>at least to take the time to formulate it properly.
>Roberto and I probably used the voting mechanism too rarely.
>
>It is still a danger that one could be using it too much.
>
>                Harald
>
>At 11:58 20.04.2001 +0000, Roberto GA wrote:
>>Jefsey,
>>
>>>
>>>What is expected is simple and common:
>>>- a motion is proposed
>>>- the motion is seconded
>>>- the motion is acknowledged
>>>- the motion may be opposed
>>>- if it not opposed it is deemed accepted
>>>- if it is opposed it is made to a vote
>>>- if the vote is in favor of the motion, the motion is accepted
>>>- once accepted the motion is acted upon and the way it is carried out is
>>>subject to ML consensus or debate.
>>
>>
>>I have a comment on this, from my past experience as Chair.
>>Sometimes this Assembly is jumping to motions before having made any 
>>effort to debate the issue.
>>IMHO, the debate of the issue has to be done *before* the presentation of 
>>motions, and not following it.
>>In fact, when a motion is presented, seconded and acknowledged, there is 
>>no further debate, if not on the wording of the motion.
>>So I was feeling the need of a step in the procedure that allows the 
>>Chair "not to acknowledge the motion" because of lack of previous 
>>discussion, and in this case to send an implicit invitation to debate 
>>(and maybe give a deadline, at which the floor will be open for motions).
>>
>>Regards
>>Roberto
>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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
>
>--
>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