Re: [ga] MOTION AMENDMENT

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

I understand there is an amendment - but to what text ?

If it is an amendment to the current GA Rules, version 0.4,
dated 6 Nov 2000
   http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules-v0.4.html
please quote which part is to be amended, i.e. sentence(s) 
to add, delete or to replace.

If it is an amendment to another text, please provide URL.

Elisabeth Porteneuve


--------Original Message--------
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 15:40:37 -0400
Subject: Re: [ga]  MOTION AMENDMENT
From: Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>
To: Patrick Corliss <patrick@quad.net.au>, Peter de Blanc <pdeblanc@usvi.net>
CC: "[ga]" <ga@dnso.org>
Message-ID: <B774C6F4.1764%jo-uk@rcn.com>

Hang on! I really do have concerns about:-

1.  Members sending a Motion on a new rule to a ballot when there has been
no discussion whatsoever on how the new rule could be implemented. Shouldn't
that be debated before the vote is taken?

2. Members would be adopting a new RULE that mentions a process for moving
an ISSUE from a sub-list to the main list, but in such vague terms as not to
be useful. 
 
3. According to the wording of the last sentence, a member may raise an
issue one day, and move it to the main ga list the next. Is this really the
best wording we can manage?


Let's look at the last sentence: " However, subscribers to GA-RULES may
> > refer issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot or follow such other
> > prescribed procedures that have been adopted by the General Assembly.

What are ISSUES? I know that at least Bill Lovell will agree with me when I
say that an ISSUE is "A condition of fact thought to exist on which it is
believed that some action may be required" (because he drafted it as the
definition being used for BEST PRACTICES). Now, doesn't that make a nonsense
of the last sentence of this Motion?

I therefore PROPOSE an AMENDMENT, and if necessary a POLL on the ga-rules
list to determine which form of the Motion should go forward for a ballot:-

AMENDMENT

(1)    The GA list should be reserved for substantive issues relating to DNS
policy.  All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures, etc.
should be debated on GA-RULES until such time as and ISSUE has risen to the
level of requiring a determinative ballot of the General Assembly.

(2)    The list rules should be amended to include the exact wording of (1)
above.

If you can't agree with the new wording, then at least please indicate your
concurrence that a problem exists with this last sentence, and let's discuss
it futher on ga-rules.

Regards,
Joanna 

    On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > The folowing motion has been proposed, seconded and amended.
> >
> > (1)    The GA list should be reserved for substantive issues relating to DNS
> > policy.  All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures, etc.
> > should be debated on GA-RULES.  However, subscribers to GA-RULES may
> > refer issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot or follow such other
> > prescribed procedures that have been adopted by the General Assembly.
> >
> > (2)    The list rules should be amended to include the exact wording of (1)
> > above.
> >
> > As this motion has generated significant support, I would now ask that it
> > be submitted to the DNSO Secretariat for a formal vote.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Alternate Chair
> >


--
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