Re: [ga] Moving Discussion -- Call on the Chair

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 16:50:45 -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> I might be missing something here, but where are the "current procedures"
> mentioned above codified?  Further, if the Chair was to personally accept
the
> proposed policy, would that make it a de facto GA institution?

Dear Sotiris

I'm sorry that you missed the subtle interplay there.  Danny is the Chair
and I am the Alternate Chair.  I do not have any power at all except calling
myself Alternate Chair.  In particular I don't want to tell Danny, or
anybody else, what to do.  I can suggest, perhaps even urge, but not more
than that.

Since you are asking for my thoughts, they are these:

(1)    The DNSO Secretariat has *spiked* this motion before Danny even got
near to accepting it.  Any discussion about the DNSO Secretariat or voting
procedures would be a diversion.  Even mentioning these issues will lead
somebody to talk about them.  Catch-22.

(2)    Danny has not paid much attention to this motion possibly because he
has a life to lead.  I would appreciate his personal endorsement.  Danny
could also bring pressure to bear on the DNSO Names Council.  With his
support, the motion will at least get past the DNSO Secretariat.

(3)    An alternative, already suggested, is to use Joop's polling booth for
the purpose.  Again, any discussion about voting procedures should be
conducted on the GA-RULES list.  For example, how should people register to
vote?  We really need to take things a step at a time.

(4)    Once the motion is accepted by Danny, the GA could self-organize
enough to transfer debate to GA-RULES voluntarily.  Some might refuse and we
could discuss what to do about that if it happens.  At least, those who
refuse would be seen as acting contrary to the will of the majority.

(5)    Even without a vote, the current rules allow the list monitors to
adjudicate whether an issue is off-topic.  Should the motion be accepted by
the majority -- and the Chair -- the list monitors might be asked to apply
the rule accordingly.  Again, discussion of this issue is best left to
GA-RULES.

Let me give you an example.  Bill Lovell exceeded his daily limit and
provoked a diversion on that subject.  I said I had exceeded my daily limit.
Immediately several people lodged complaints.  And so it goes.  I have said
before it is a Catch-22.   I can't believe people on this list don't
understand that.

This sort of diversionary tactic is exactly what the motion is designed to
prevent.  Can we not wait until Danny indicates his assent before getting
into details?  The motion is clear enough on its face.

Enough prevarication, Sotiris, do you support the motion YES or NO ?


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