[ga-rules] Re: [ga] Proposal for moving forward

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

I agree with Roeland and Bill.

Other reasons why it is not reasonable to expect the Chair to be capable of
determining consensus on a substantive issue without a vote are:-

1. He/she is not a mind reader and not everybody on the voting roster voices
their opinion on the mailing list.

2. The passage or not of a Motion should not rely upon one person's opinion,
however emminent that person may be.

As a mark of respect to those who supported the spirit and intent of
Patrick's motion, I am sending this response to the ga-rules list.

Regards,
Joanna

on 7/17/01 3:21 PM, Roeland Meyer at rmeyer@mhsc.com wrote:

> I strongly disagree with that. That's precisely what has gotten us
> (collectively)into this mess, in the first place. I think that we need to
> record a vote, period. At least, a poll result.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:weinberg@mail.msen.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 11:51 AM
>> To: wsl@cerebalaw.com
>> Cc: ga@dnso.org
>> Subject: Re: [ga] Proposal for moving forward
>> 
>> 
>> Bill,
>> 
>> I think you misunderstood my earlier message (below).   My
>> suggestion wasn't that we need consensus before we can vote.
>> Rather, it 
>> was that if we have consensus (as determined by the chair),
>> we don't *need* 
>> to vote.
>> 
>> Jon
>> 
>> 
>> At 10:19 AM 7/17/2001 -0700, you 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>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/>http://whatis.techtarget.com/
>>> GLOSSARY: 
>>> <http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm>http://www.icann.o
> rg/general/glossary.htm
>> 
>> 
> 
> --
> 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
> 

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