Re: [ga] I wish a vote
Hey, hold on, Jefsey! Some folks objected to the time for responding to the poll being too short, so the timeline therefor was extended. Joanna is tracking the results, and when the time is up, she'll post the results. I, too, suspect that the result will be positive, and when so announced by Joanna, the "floor" will be open for Proposals, of which yours below I am sure will be more than welcome. So I'm suggesting only that your post is slightly premature. By my interpretation of your expression below, and that made earlier by James Love, the two are not inconsistent and say much the same thing in different words. Upon Recognition of both of them, there is a generous time period during which the relative merits can be Debated, and there may be a fusing of the two into a new suggested Proposal, or who knows? In any event, there is now a defined mechanism being played out that satisfies the truly imperative need to demonstrate not just to the Chair but to the entirety of the ga@dnso.org, that consensus has been reached on the matter of presenting one or mor formal Motions to the Chair and then to the DNSO Secretariat. Assuming that the Debate on these Proposals yields one or more Motions on which the wording has been settled (we don't want the Chair to be burdened with last minute amendments), the Chair (one may assume) will formally request of the DNSO Secretariat that a formal vote be set up in accordance with existing ICANN procedures. This procedure should accomplish two things: (1) meet the previous objection made by the Chair (and rightly so, in my opinion) that the "Motion" presented by James Love had not undergone enough Discussion or Debate to be voted upon in any meaningful manner (under Best Practices terminology, the "Motion" lacked adequate Basis); and (2) demonstrate a level and amount of Discussion and Debate which yielded final agreement (i.e., consensus) on the wording of one or more Motions to be submitted. Any vote must ultimately demonstrate a meaningful consensus it it is be accorded any credibility, and the only way to do that is to conduct these things in a systematic way. I should add that a part of being systematic is that no more than one poll on some specific issue should be run at the same time. Your entry below essentially duplicates the poll now being run by Joanna to which you refer, and I suggest we stick with the one now in process. Bill Lovell jefsey wrote: 5.1.0.14.0.20020505063300.035eba90@pop.online.fr"> In spite of the fact that nine Members have already seconded that request by James Love, it seems there is a need to show our Chair what the GA wants. So, please kindly reply to the GA list:
|