Re: [ga] Procedure.

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Joanna and all assembly members,

  I share Joannas concerns regarding the Chair's recent and repetitive
disruptive behavior.  I also support Joanna's concern regarding
ALexanders attempting to circumvent or otherwise confuse
motions and the upcoming ballot format to do so...  Such behaviors
by Alexander and Thomas deserve the GA' members sanctioning..

Joanna Lane wrote:

> Thomas,
> I am deeply concerned that this procedure is being unilaterally decided by a
> Chair who is not at all neutral on the issues being debated. He is very
> hostile towards the first Motion, and if that isn't bad enough, the
> Alternate Chair is the Proponent of what is being set down as a competing
> Motion.  This state of affairs is not at all satisfactory, the results will
> not stand up to scrutiny later, it goes directly against every principal of
> Best Practices.
>
> I make further comments below.
>
> > Just in case it helps, the ballot as I imagined it when I wrote my
> > message in the morning would (roughly) look like this:
> >
> >       [ ] motion 1
> >       [ ] motion 2
> >
> >       [ ] abstain
> >
> > The options you have: Either abstain, or give yes/no votes to _both_
> > motions.  In this situation, there are basically three things which
> > can happen:
>
> This is not an appropriate format. These are not conflicting Motions whereby
> one has to chose one or the other, and if they were, then you should not be
> sending them for a vote, rather you should facilitate further discussion to
> eliminate one or other Motion. That would more than likely involve another
> informal Poll to determine which has greater consensus. As it is, if you
> insist on proceeding with a formal ballot this week, then you must allow the
> membership to vote on each Motion separately, which means an option for,
> against, and abstain on each Motion.
>
> > I admit that this is a rather "creative" application of the GA's
> > voting rules.
>
> Which would make the whole exercise a complete waste of time since the
> results would not stand up to scrutiny for reasons of your creative
> application of the rules.
>
> > As far as I see it, a strict application of these rules would
> > mandate that the question on the ballot is something like this:
> >
> >       Please select one of the following options:
> >
> >       [ ] The GA should adopt the "re-bid" resolution
> >       [ ] The GA should adopt the "basic principles" resolution
> >       [ ] The GA should adopt none of the above resolutions.
>
> Excuse me? Please point me to the part of the rules that says members cannot
> explicitly state their preference for each motion presented to them as a
> separate decision. I may agree with both of these Motions, or disagree with
> both, or I may agree with one, but abstain on another. You are denying my
> right to make those choices.
>
> > (Then again, taking this vote at all most likely implies that we are
> > already bending some rather important rules, as William has
> > argued.)
>
> A wholly inappropriate, almost juvenile, response to the point of order
> question in my view. If, the Chair is not satisfied that a vote is in order,
> then he/she should stop proceedings forthwith until it is. If, on the other
> hand, he/she allows it to proceed, then it should be done willingly and in
> good faith. Making insinuations that the procedure may be invalidated
> later - as Thomas is now doing, is out of order for a Chair.
>
> > I'm still waiting for comments on this; I'd suggest that these
> > comments should come rather quickly, since the time window we have
> > for starting an election is limited to this week due to practical
> > constraints at the secretariat, as I already pointed out more than a
> > week ago.
>
> What practical constraints? Since when did the General Assembly have to
> conduct its business to fit in with the Secretariat's social life (or
> whatever the reason is for insisting its done this week)? Do we know what
> pressing issue(s) prevents the Assembly from conducting its business as it
> sees fit?
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
> >
> > --
> > 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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