Re: [ga] DNSO/GA Blocking and other concerns

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 21:43 20/04/01 -0400, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>My personal comment on the matter of motions:
>
>A vote by the GA takes a week of wall clock time, and several hours of 
>secretariat time as presently configured. If there is debate about the 
>validity of votes, the time spent could easily go quite high.
>It is not a mechanism we should trivially set in motion, or we will very 
>quickly see "voting weariness" setting in.
>
Dear Harald,

On the other hand, it is the only mechanism that brings "closure". 
Even if the take the short list of proposed agenda items of DPF, we need to
bring closure to a number of these items, or the GA will be terminally
frustrated about its uselessness.
At the moment, we lose GA members not due to voting weariness but "list
weariness".

I have always mistrusted ballot-box burners, election boycott campaigners
and people who scream about "illegal" voting. (You may forgive me, I lived
in the Philippines during the Marcos years, the "people-power revolution"
and its aftermath) .
Too often , these people just want to maintain a status -quo and will use
any argument to prevent the opinion of the majority to be heard.

>In the rules we agreed upon, we gave the chair the sole responsibility to 
>formulate and send out votes; we did not see a better solution at the time.
>
We now have elected Chairs. A change of rule that the Chair must list all
duly seconded motions and give the list the opportunity (72 hours?) to
lodge opposions, call for  amendments or for a vote would be completely
justified.
In fact, I was not aware that our Chairs were currently *not* under such
obligation. 

>There might be other possible solutions - for instance, one could say that 
>a petition for a motion, fully formulated and signed by at least 10 
>members, MUST be put before the assembly by the chair. Or this threshold 
>might be too low.
>
Too low?  When our candidate chairs had to go out getting 10 endorsements?


>Many of the motions I have seen on the list are what I would call 
>"half-baked" - they are not precise in what they want to achieve, they are 
>not precise in how they are formulated, and they are emphatically not the 
>most useful comment the GA could make into a situation.
>
In other words , you disagreed with them.
Perhaps you could be specific about which motions you are talking?

>If the GA is to spend the resources to go through a vote, I think we need 
>at least to take the time to formulate it properly.
>Roberto and I probably used the voting mechanism too rarely.
>

To put it mildly.

>It is still a danger that one could be using it too much.
>

You have not convinced me of that.


--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
Elected representative.
http://www.idno.org  

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html