RE: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

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

Thomas Roessler wrote:-
> Bzzzt, wrong procedure.  As I said earlier, please get a reasonable
> motion onto the table first.  Then show support.  Then vote.  You're
> still at step 1.

Thomas,
I understand that you may not welcome an ordinary member taking the
initiative to foster consensus on an issue, but I find your tone
unnecessarily hostile. The GA must have procedures to produce Motions, ones
that are participatory, accessible to people, transparent, that mobilize
necessary resources and expertise, are efficient and effective, that
engender and command respect and trust, that encourage members to define and
take ownership of recommended actions, that are enabling and facilitative,
regulatory rather than controlling, service oriented and above all,
accountable to the public trust.

You, on the other hand, are insisting, in a rather high handed and
autocratic fashion, that nobody may speak, ask for a show of hands, suggest
a schedule, or even have a general discussion on this issue (and presumably
any other) unless a formal Motion is put on the table first.

Well, I don't know which GA list you're reading, but the feedback I have at
the time of writing, indicates that more discussion and debate would be
welcomed before a Vote is taken, but that Jamie is certainly not standing
alone, and that there is considerable interest in taking this issue forward,
whether or not a "reasonable" (whatever that means) Motion is currently on
the table. I fail to understand how your shutting both the Poll and the
discussion down could be moving this issue forward.

Some concern has been expressed that this matter is being "rushed through",
and it may be that over the course of the next 48 hours or so while the Poll
is underway, that a natural resistance to go straight to a vote will set in,
(or maybe not) and that Jamie will not elicit (or may) the necessary show of
hands to proceed straight to a Vote.

My sense is that he will not, but that if the schedule is extended to allow
more time for debate, to be more in keeping with the Minimum Times stated in
the Best Practices Documents, then he will have the support for Vote that he
seeks. That's the purpose of posting the Time Line Guide for comment at this
stage, because obviously, the short time frame is a factor in the decision
to go for the vote or not at this time.

On the other hand, you would have us sit here doing nothing while waiting
for your approval of a Motion that has not even been written yet? It just
doesn't make sense to me, sorry.

<rest of inflammatory and derogatory language deleted>

Regards,
Joanna

--
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