RE: [ga] MOTION AMENDMENT

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> From: Joanna Lane [mailto:jo-uk@rcn.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 12:41 PM
> 
> 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?

Agreed, there are some issues with this. One of the main reasons that most
organizations have committees and working groups is exactly this. Their main
purpose is to keep discussions focused with those that have sufficient
interest, without becoming a large distraction for those that would rather
work on something else. You are asking the question of how such
organizations determine that the new topic has both sufficient interest to
populate a group and yet is focused enough to confine itself to such a
group.

> 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. 

The simplistic answer is to leave that up to the chair. However, I suspect
that would be an unacceptable response for many here. A more complex answer
would be to form a "topic discussion board" of some sort. But then we rise
to a level of bureucracy that may weigh very heavy on this sized group.
Also, this was the down-fall of the French "Old Republic",
excessive/oppressive bureucracy. I suggest leaving it up to the chairs
(since they are elected officials) whilst having constant review in the rulz
committee. This should satisfy both concerns.

> 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?

I think that a member could only move it to the main GA with consent of the
majority of the committee. Actual, real-life, committees and WGs have a
chair that controls this. The chairs are also responsible for preparing the
cmte reports and summaries. However, we then get back to the
man-power/bureucracy issues. We just don't have enough folks that want that
job. Given the lack of leadership man-power be may be stuck with relying on
committee consensus and ignoring/disciplining the occasional loose-canons
(not a typo). Note that I am NOT using "consensus" and "majority" as
interchangable terms here. 

I am of the opinion that there needs to be, at the minimum, a polling method
to determine the cmte's opinion, general mind-set, and to approve the output
of the cmte. It is a process that needs "entry criteria", "process rules",
"exit criteria", and "evidence of completion".
The issue there is what degree of formalism to adopt. I further believe that
this needs to be discussed on GA-RULES and a final report released to this
assembly.

At the end of the day, the desired result is that focused discussion only
occurs in cmte whilst the rest of us maintain the general policy
discussions, occasionally pushing topics out to more cmtes, as they come up.
Further, that the GA receives the summary results from the cmtes. If we can
get that to happen then the GA might actually be able to get something done,
at all, in a reasonable fashion.

In summary, I agree with the spirit, even if I may not quite agree with the
wording, of this amendment.


> 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.
--
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