RE: [ga] Moving Discussion Off the GA List I'll second that

["Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

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