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

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

What I hope is facetiously designated as "dialogue mode" below is the 
only thing that
ga@dnso has ever done, and where has that gotten it? A systematic procedure
that first ascertains real interest (which Joanna Lane opines has 
already been shown,
and she's likely right), and then seeks specific proposals to be 
discussed and when
finally expressed as a motion is ultimately debated, should be followed. 
 But it is a
mistake, in my opinion, to name what one starts out with as a "Motion," 
for which
there has in fact been no opportunity for discussion. I would concur 
with Tom if the
James Love proposal were treated as just that; so doing would not yet 
implicate the
formality of the DSNO Secretariat, but a Vote on a Motion would, with 
all of the
attendant formality and restrictions.

Bill Lovell

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2002-05-02 17:54:06 -0400, James Love wrote:
>
>> It will give the GA members a voice.  I don't care what your  
>> personal views are on the merits of the proposal I would like  voted on. 
>
>
> Likewise, I don't care what your personal views are on what the GA  
> should vote on.
>
> That said, could we please return to dialogue mode, and try to get a 
> motion onto the table which would enable the GA to make a  
> _constructive_ contribution?  If you want help and suggestions for  
> this, please refer to my original reply to your motion.  If you  don't 
> want that help, that's your problem.
>


--
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