Re: [ga] MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List

[Sotiris Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

Patrick, Joanna, et al.

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi Joanna
>
> The original wording of the motion was:
>
> > All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures, etc. should be
> > debated on GA-RULES. However, subscribers to GA-RULES may, by
> > consensus, refer issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot.
>
> When you objected to that I amended the wording to read:
>
> > 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.
>
> You have suggested an alternative form of wording:
>
> > All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures, etc. should be
> > debated on GA-RULES until such time as an ISSUE has risen to the
> > level of requiring a determinative ballot of the General Assembly.
>
> I cannot see how your wording improves on the amendment.  You agree that
> there may be a "determinative ballot of the General Assembly" but you have
> re-introduced a specific *trigger* which the amendment sought to avoid.

I have a question with respect to your wording Patrick, and then one for Joanna.

Patrick, when you say:

>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.

Does this mean that any subscriber to the ga-rules may refer issues to the full
GA at any given time?
I'm sure I'm just being a little obtuse here.. but I'd like this point clarified
please.

Joanna, with respect to debates that relate to ga-rules, when you state "until
such time as an ISSUE has risen to the level of requiring a determinative
ballot", what xactly do you mean by "risen to the level"?  What exactly is the
standard?  I wonder if you might be able to avoid the term "consensus" in your
response, and just be a little more specific in characterization than said term
allows.

I'd like to have both of these points cleared before I support or reject a
motion on these matters.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

--
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