Re: [ga] MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Sotiris, Patrick,

I respond to your specific queries below.
Joanna 


on 7/14/01 12:07 PM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos at sotiris@hermesnetwork.com
wrote:

> Patrick, Joanna, et al.
> 
> Patrick Corliss wrote:
> 
>> Hi Joanna
>> 
>> The original wording of the motion was:
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> When you objected to that I amended the wording to read:
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> You have suggested an alternative form of wording:
>> 
>>> All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures, etc. should be
>>> debated on GA-RULES until such time as an ISSUE has risen to the
>>> level of requiring a determinative ballot of the General Assembly.
>> 
>> I cannot see how your wording improves on the amendment.  You agree that
>> there may be a "determinative ballot of the General Assembly" but you have
>> re-introduced a specific *trigger* which the amendment sought to avoid.

Patrick,
You are entitled to your opinion, but the difference is crucial in the use
of the word "ISSUE". I agree that introducing a specific trigger may not be
prudent at this stage, but without one, anybody may say, "Look folks, here's
an issue that *I* think is so important, the whole Assembly should be
involved, hence I'm posting it to the main list", and we're back to square
one, which is exactly why I believe *implementation* should be addressed
prior to a vote. 

Questions include  *how* people on the main list are kept informed of
developments on sub-lists, *when* it is appropriate to revert to the main
Assembly, and for *what* reason. Members seem only too willing to assign an
issue to a sub-list forever, seemingly forgetting that at some point, a
decision has to be made about involving the main assembly (or not). What is
that point exactly? Nobody knows.


> I have a question with respect to your wording Patrick, and then one for
> Joanna.
> 
> Patrick, when you say:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Does this mean that any subscriber to the ga-rules may refer issues to the
> full
> GA at any given time?
> I'm sure I'm just being a little obtuse here.. but I'd like this point
> clarified
> please.

Right on target Sotiris. You are not being obtuse.
> 
> Joanna, with respect to debates that relate to ga-rules, when you state "until
> such time as an ISSUE has risen to the level of requiring a determinative
> ballot", what xactly do you mean by "risen to the level"?  What exactly is the
> standard?  I wonder if you might be able to avoid the term "consensus" in your
> response, and just be a little more specific in characterization than said
> term
> allows.

Sotiris,
A great frustration of mine at this particular moment in time is that while
Bill Lovell and I have the first part of the BEST PRACTICES document in
great shape, an ideal world would have given us more time to complete all
content prior to posting, but our hand is being forced.

It is fairly irritiating that having given up so much of our time to this
initiative, that Patrick has seen fit to pre-empt what we are doing and
while your question is absolutely valid, I beg your indulgence until the
DEFINITIONS part one of the BEST PRACTICES document appears on the ga-rules
list in the next day or so, and hopefully then, you will find the answers
you seek. Your patience is much appreciated.

Regards,
Joanna

P.S. I suggest we continue this discussion on the ga-rules list for obvious
reasons


> I'd like to have both of these points cleared before I support or reject a
> motion on these matters.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> 

--
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