Re: [ga] MOTION AMENDMENT

[Derek Conant <dconant@dnsga.org>]

I agree with Joanna and this was also my concern in the first place.  To move the GA
forward, I felt compelled to agree with Patrick's motion.  My position is that
*we'll cross that bridge when we get to it*, unless you want to spend three weeks
now debating the subject.

I believe that a better topic to address would be granting certain GA
representatives voting power to drive the GA process forward.  However, I've already
tried to present this concept to the GA and maybe it was not understood.  The
concept I presented appears alive here anyway with only certain GA representatives
running the show.  So, who has time to waste here?  Let's designate 9 GA
representatives and empower them with voting power for 90 days that represents the
full GA.  If the full GA does not like certain representative positions or actions
upon 90 days, those certain representatives will be replaced with others who better
represent the GA.

The GA has the problems it has because it is not properly organized and because of
this it cannot move significant agenda forward through any valid consensus process.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

Joanna Lane wrote:

> Hang on! I really do have concerns about:-
>
> 1.  Members sending a Motion on a new rule to a ballot when there has been
> no discussion whatsoever on how the new rule could be implemented. Shouldn't
> that be debated before the vote is taken?
>
> 2. Members would be adopting a new RULE that mentions a process for moving
> an ISSUE from a sub-list to the main list, but in such vague terms as not to
> be useful.
>
> 3. According to the wording of the last sentence, a member may raise an
> issue one day, and move it to the main ga list the next. Is this really the
> best wording we can manage?
>
> Let's look at the last sentence: " However, subscribers to GA-RULES may
> > > refer issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot or follow such other
> > > prescribed procedures that have been adopted by the General Assembly.
>
> What are ISSUES? I know that at least Bill Lovell will agree with me when I
> say that an ISSUE is "A condition of fact thought to exist on which it is
> believed that some action may be required" (because he drafted it as the
> definition being used for BEST PRACTICES). Now, doesn't that make a nonsense
> of the last sentence of this Motion?
>
> I therefore PROPOSE an AMENDMENT, and if necessary a POLL on the ga-rules
> list to determine which form of the Motion should go forward for a ballot:-
>
> AMENDMENT
>
> (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 until such time as and ISSUE has risen to the
> level of requiring a determinative ballot of the General Assembly.
>
> (2)    The list rules should be amended to include the exact wording of (1)
> above.
>
> If you can't agree with the new wording, then at least please indicate your
> concurrence that a problem exists with this last sentence, and let's discuss
> it futher on ga-rules.
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
>     On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> >
> > > The folowing motion has been proposed, seconded and amended.
> > >
> > > (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
> > > refer issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot or follow such other
> > > prescribed procedures that have been adopted by the General Assembly.
> > >
> > > (2)    The list rules should be amended to include the exact wording of (1)
> > > above.
> > >
> > > As this motion has generated significant support, I would now ask that it
> > > be submitted to the DNSO Secretariat for a formal vote.
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > > Alternate Chair
> > >
>
> --
> 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