Re[2]: [ga] Proposal for moving forward

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello William,

The DNSO is not a democracy.  A democracy is ruled by 50%+1 and/or a
plurality.

That is not how the DNSO or the DNSO GA is run.

Tuesday, July 17, 2001, 10:19:59 AM, William S. Lovell wrote:

> I concur on the allowance of more time for discussing the issue, even
> though I believe it now to be a foregone conclusion, and have given
> my "yeah" on the poll.  However, I think there is a fundamental flaw
> in the thinking of just about everyone here.

> The premise seems to be that there must already have been reached
> what looks like a "consensus" approval of an Issue before there can be
> a vote on it. If that were the case, why have the Vote? I don't believe
> that Votes (i.e., an individual voting event, not your vote or mine) are,
> ever have been (except here), or should be, merely a rubber stamping
> process on an Issue that has already been decided.  What justifies a
> Vote is not pre-approval of the outcome, but rather the existence of
> an Issue on which there has been expressed wide spread interest, and
> involving a matter of real substance.

> There will come the day when some such Issue will be roundly opposed,
> and the apparent "consensus" will be that whatever it is should never
> happen.  That circumstance would be just as proper for the carrying out
> of a Vote as the opposite -- the people who oppose some proposition
> have as much right to get their views expressed definitively in a Vote as
> do those who support any such proposition.

> There will be other circumstances in which the outcome of a Vote could
> not be predicted in advance. And that, of course, is the fundamental
> reason why Votes are carried out in the first place. This notion of only
> agreeing to have a Vote when it appears that the "yeahs" have it is really
> quite a perversion of the whole concept of democracy.

> Bill Lovell

> Jonathan Weinberg wrote:

>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 13:12:26 +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:
>> >      it seems there is general agreement with the spirit
>> >        of Patrick's motion. Joanna Lana has raised concerns
>> >        about the wording, but it seems nobody has argued
>> >        that procedural issues /should/ be discussed on the
>> >        GA main list instead of GA-rules.
>> >        Why don't we simply agree to *follow* the rules until
>> >        such time when we have the resources and time to vote
>> >        on it and use the voting mechanism instead for those
>> >        issues which need to be voted on *now*? (I assume we will
>> >        not agree on a UDRP Task Force representative by debate...)
>> >        So, if you agree, *DON'T* reply to this mail on the
>> >        main GA list:
>> >        [snip]
>>
>>          Since Alexander's call for quiet doesn't seem to have worked . . .
>> I think the emphasis -- on all sides -- on taking this motion to a formal
>> vote is misplaced.  We've so far managed to avoid a knock-down, drag-out
>> debate on the structure and functioning of the ga (should it act like an
>> IETF working group? like a national parliament?), but it seems to me that
>> in general, it's the job of the Chair to determine when the group has
>> reached rough consensus on a matter like this one, so that we can move
>> on.  The choice of exactly how he makes the determination should be largely
>> up to him (straw votes can be helpful sometimes, but other times
>> not).  This motion has only been on the mailing list for a couple of days
>> now, which is too soon to make a judgment of rough consensus. Once a week
>> has gone by, though, if the "hum" remains as one-sided as it's been so far,
>> I think it would be fully appropriate for Danny to conclude that the
>> proposal is adopted by rough consensus.
>>
>> Jon
>>
>> --
>> 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

> --
> Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
> to the reader may possibly be explained at:
> "WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
> GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm




-- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

--
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