[ga] The motions
I have responded to the ballot on the two motions, voting on the first one and abstaining on the second. I was forced to abstain on the second because it is so ambiguous and poorly worded that it should never have been accepted. While one can discern the intent of the motion, the problem lies in the following language: " . . . orgnizations which are accountable to the international Internet community have clearly defined missions and are not only under the sole control of a national department of commerce . . . " Taken literally, that seems to say that the accountablility, having missions, and being under the sole control of a national department of commerce are all desired goals. One can read on, and from the rest of the context figure out what was meant to be said, but that will not do. From where I've ended the quote above, one would ordinarily expect a phrase like "but also . . . blah, blah." It is only from the absence of such a phrase that one can figure out that the preceding "not only" in the motion as written does not really mean what is says -- the syntax is backwards. What was evidently meant was something like "having missions, and the control of which is not under the sole control . . . ," but the motion does not say that. The same might have been accomplished simply deleting the "only" -- it is redundant anyway, since the term "sole" expresses the same thing. An issue as important as this should have been defined more carefully by the Chair and Alternate Chair, and I suggest that when this voting is over, the same thing be done again more correctly, and particularly by a motion that is not thrown in at the last minute with little time for comment. If motions are proposed by persons for whom English is not the native language, there will typically be syntax problems that the Chair and Alternate Chair should correct. The results on motion 2, whatever they may turn out to be, are going to be rather meaningless. Bill Lovell
|