Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

[Dan Steinberg <synthesis@videotron.ca>]

OK. THe cc: list has gotten long enough and it is Friaday and I haven't
posted this month so if everyone will permit I will make a suggestion.

As far as I understand the current situation, Thomas is asking for
a) a formulation of a reasonable motion
b) discussion of the motion
c) vote

Hard to argue with proper procedure. What we seem to be caught on is
step a): formulation.
Since I have used up my own personal quota for the month and since I
have my own agenda (see disclosure below) may I request on behalf of the
GA that Thomas provide us with text of a reasonable motion?  Thomas, I
have worked with you on occasion and see what you do here on a regular
basis with the GA. Can we presume upon you to step up perform this task?
It would serve to clear the logjam.

disclosure: since I was a writer of the compliant bid in opposition to
the ICANN team last time round, my calling for a re-bid could have the
appearance of having an 'agenda'.


Dan Steinberg
Synthssis: Law & Technology


Thomas Roessler wrote:
> 
> On 2002-05-02 21:11:34 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
> 
> >The following table sets out what is believed to be a reasonable
> >guideline as to the timing of the various events that need to
> >take place in order for the whole Assembly to vote on this issue
> >within a 10 day period .
> 
> Bzzzt, wrong procedure.  As I said earlier, please get a reasonable
> motion onto the table first.  Then show support.  Then vote.  You're
> still at step 1.
> 
> At this time, there's no need for a poll on the question if the GA
> should vote.
> 
> Entering broken record mode once again: Propose a motion.  Put it on
> the table for _discussion_ (you know, that thing with listening to
> others, changing the proposal, trying to find consensus,
> respectfully dealing with others' opinions - all that stuff you
> folks claim to have been fighting for in the ICANN process).
> Ideally, that discussion will already show that there is reasonable
> interest in having a vote on the motion which ultimately evolves.
> If needed, one may also ask for a short show of hands in order to
> estimate interest in the motion _after_ it's on the table, i.e.,
> after it has been discussed.  In the end, vote.
> 
> James's current attitude - namely, that the only private opinion
> which should matter on this GA is his, and that his motion should be
> put to vote without cumbersome discussions for that reason - is not
> compatible with this process.
> 
> James is free to follow the process I have outlined several times
> now.  In that case, we may end up with a vote - the discussion will
> show.
> 
> Alternatively, James may continue to operate according to his
> current attitude.  In that case, he won't get a vote any time soon,
> but he'll surely continue to waste his, my, and everyone else's
> time.
> 
> To make this crystal clear, these are the options available:
> 
>  - follow process
>  - shut up
>  - continue with the present waste of time and ressources
>  - impeach me
> 
> Options 1 and 4 are the only ones which may lead to a vote.
> 
> Continuing with the present waste of time and ressources is the
> worst of all these options.
> 
> Have a nice week-end,
> --
> Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> --
> 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