Re: [ga] Motion process rules -- DRAFT 0.1

[Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>]

Responding to two postings:

At 29.05.2002 09:14, James Love wrote:
>A few quick comments..
>
>1.  Can we get this done before the Bucharest meeting?

Yes, pleeease! :))

>2.  Can we cap the number of endorsers that are needed (like the Canadians
>did).

I'm not completely sure that this is what you refer to:
You prefer to have a specific number of supporters
necessary instead of or in addition to a percentage of Voting 
Registry members? (According to http://www.cira.ca/en/faq-menu12.html,
every candidate needs support from 50 CIRA members.)

Both percentages and numbers have drawbacks:
If we use numbers and the Voting Registry continues to
grow, the requirement could suddenly become ridiculously low.
If we use percentages and the Voting Registry continues to
grow, the requirement could suddenly become too high.
The reverse applies if we do what Danny Younger seems to
hint at: a re-certification of Voting Registry members
to check if they still are alive.
If we use numbers and the Voting Registry becomes smaller
again, the requirement could suddenly become too high.
If we use percentages and the Voting Registry becomes
smaller again, the requirement could suddenly become very 
low.

How about "4% of VR membership or 35 VR members, whichever
is smaller"?

>3.   Is it too complex regarding requirements for changes?    Sometimes a
>clever minor change comes at the end, and makes the whole thing work to
>everyone's satifaction.

Well, if the clever minor changes are friendly amendments, 
that's no problem: They just have to be accepted by the
proponent (and not be opposed by more than 1/4 of the
original supporters). It becomes a bit more complex if
the proponent opposes the change -- and that's probably
an indication that the change is somewhat more substantial.

--------

At 29.05.2002 15:35, J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin wrote:
>Thank you. This is a very good work. I only question I have is the alternative motion. I understand the motive, but not the 2%. If this is pure opposition, there should be the same requirement in term of second. If this is complementarity or a big amendment many of the initial supporters will support it too as they might vote for both (like the last one), so you do not need to worry about less time. Your motion was supported as well. 

The reason for having a barrier at all is to prevent us 
from voting on motions which nobody or only one person is
interested while taking votes on important issues. The
problem about alternative motions (as we have just 
witnessed) is that it's often hard to tell if a motion
is "pure opposition", complementary, a big amendment
or something different with regards to another motion.
And it gets even worse if there are three or more motions.

That's why the proposed rules say: If we have a motion 
proposal on topic X and there is enough support, that means
(a) the motion should be discussed and voted upon and
(b) the issue is of considerable interest to the GA.
I would prefer (not only, but also because of the election 
costs) to bundle all the votes on one topic. If we
had another four weeks, the whole process would become
rather cumbersome. And:

>Also, having an initially less supported motion will lead to consider it is a lower grade motion, a political bias. So it would be a disservice to the alternate motion and would not help its introduction. 

I don't think this would happen. Look at people who have
been elected as ICANN Directors: The number of endorsements 
they have received before the elections does not play
much of a role.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

--
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