Re: [ga] Procedure.

[Gary Osbourne <gro@direct.ca>]

At 07:25 PM 13/05/02 +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:

>Frankly, each vote is costly. I takes several hours
>of work on several days, mostly work by the DNSO
>Secretariat, but also unpaid volunteer work by the
>election watchdogs. I recommend reading Elisabeth
>Porteneuve's remarks at
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00249.html

I was already aware of that, thanks, and generally
took it into account when making my points, which
I still stand by. I am not convinced by an argument
that the provision of democracy should equate
in any way with its cost.

ICANN spent $500,000 on the ALSC, perhaps some of
that (particularily given the outcome) could have
been better spent on actual democratic processes.
If it is a matter of more funds, why aren't they
being solicited? If it is a matter of more
volunteers, why not ask? I'm willing to volunteer.

Properly, I think, your motion should have been an
amendment to Jamie Love's motion. If it clearly had
at least the support of the first motion, and/or at
least some of the supporters of the first motion also
supported the amendment, then the Chair could rule
that the amended motion would go to a vote (or ask
for a straw poll for a day or two which of the two
motions should go forward). If the amendment passed,
move on to something else. If the amendment failed,
go back to the main motion, unless the result of
the first vote clearly showed that the main motion
would also be a waste of time (and other resources).
I doubt that this would lead to a great increase in
the number of votes, and if it did, deal with it
then, by limiting votes and/or by increasing
resources.

In the present example, those opposing the first
motion seem to have not taken into account that
even an overwhelming yes vote of perhaps 10% of
the electorate would impress no-one, or that a
60% yes vote of 50% of the electorate could
hardly be termed consensus. Rather than trust
in the wisdom of the electorate, we have seen
the Chair and Alt Chair (with neither having
any claim to impartiality) engage in a number
of arbitrary actions and rulings on how this
vote will be conducted.

Therefore an overwhelming yes vote of perhaps
10% of the electorate, or a 60% yes vote of
50% of the electorate will be given more weight
by some because the process was suspect. I
fail to see much wisdom in this. Indeed, it
looks to me like the same gaming of the system
that goes on elsewhere in ICANN.

I said on ICANNWatch over a week ago that I
didn't support this rebid idea. Better the
devil you know... And if Alexander's motion
stood on its own, either because it was considered
an amendment or because the first vote failed, I
would support it. But given the events of the past
week, perhaps it would be better to go with at
least an opportunity for a new structure and
individuals. The devil we know seems to have
thoroughly possessed the current ICANN from
top to bottom.

>In addition, not grouping motions on the same issue
>in one vote seems to have exactly the same risks of
>cyclical majorities than grouping them...

As I've already stated, that is why Robert's Rules
of Order, for example, requires a 2/3 vote to
reconsider a vote previously passed by 50% plus 1.
As most votes pass by greater than 51%, that requires
a small minority to convince a super-majority to
change their minds (and votes), which rarely happens.
There is much wisdom in Robert's Rules of Order.

>With that, I have reached my posting limit for today,
>so I'll stay silent.

I'm getting close myself. -g

--
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