RE: [ga] Motion process rules -- DRAFT 0.1

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

Alexander was once an advocate of Best Practices, as I recall, he even made
it an election pledge, but unfortunately that's been forgotten and this
Document Draft, with its convoluted amendment (I love that "friendly" bit!),
retraction, emergency,  etc.  is just not it.

*Please note that all power lies in the Chair*.

Unlike AS and TR, BP documentation, has, for the last 10 months been
recommending the balance of power in the GA is split between 3 decision
makers when it comes to running processes that assist policy decisions -
Proponent, Chair and Secretariat, where the Chair acts in a neutral
capacity, and the Secretariat takes on additional responsibility to
alleviate the "lonely-decisions-by-the-Chair" scenario, one of which is
scheduling the Time Line. I do believe that at the very least there should
be a commensurate increase in responsibility for the Secretariat when the
Chair demonstrates hostility (or overt support) of a Motion on the table -
it is simply *not healthy* to vest a Chair with all the power to control the
process AND allow them to take a partisan position, yet that is exactly what
has just happened on Motion #1 and 2#, and has now been incorporated in
these Draft Rules. This is not appropriate in my view.

The Proponent must of course have a hand in decisions to progress the
matter, since obviously they are the driving force with most interest in
searching out compromises and pushing things forward.

Three is the least possible number that can be involved if the GA is to
avoid being blocked by Proponent vs. Chair arguments (as just witnessed on
Motion #1) or run as a dictatorship (to which the AS proposal is wide open).
Other concerns I have about this draft relate to fixed deadlines and rigid
structure, but I won't go there now.

I had considered just dropping my input on the current processes, politely
saying that AS and TR have proposed a process that I might like to see tried
out to see how it
works, given that the Chair refuses to allow any other efforts.

But on reflection, I prefer to reiterate a more important point, which I
credit to Michael Froomkin. If you're going to ask people to follow you down
a path, you owe it to them to deliver the goods that are being promised for
all their effort at the end of it - and the truth is, these Motion process
rules and TR's attempted abandonment of the usual Voting process is the
latest exercise at Empire building - and since it's not founded on solid
principles, I sense that it's going to crash - so count me out.

This may look like "giving up," but I don't think so, since I
will still be around to pick up the pieces, so to speak, afterwards.

Let me know when there's a chance of a Real Vote again.

Regards,
Joanna

P.S. If anybody is interested in finding out what I'm going on about, it's
here: http://www.cerebalaw.com/BPIm.htm

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Alexander
> Svensson
> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 6:21 AM
> To: DNSO General Assembly
> Subject: [ga] Motion process rules -- DRAFT 0.1
>
>
>
> MOTION PROCESS RULES OF THE DNSO GA --  D R A F T v0.1
>
> (1) SCOPE OF THESE RULES
>
> These rules apply only to motions of the DNSO General
> Assembly. Elections of the GA Chair and Alternate Chair
> follow the GA Chair Election Rules. The voting process
> itself follows the DNSO GA Voting Rules and the Voting
> Registry Rules.
>
>
> (2) MAKING MOTION PROPOSALS
>
> All motion proposals must be sent to ga-motions@dnso.org
> and are automatically archived on the DNSO website. The
> address ga-motions@dnso.org shall not be used for discussion
> about the proposal. The proponent must be a member of the
> DNSO GA Voting Registry. The motion proposal should follow
> this format:
>
>   Proponent name           :
>   Proponent e-mail address :
>   GA Voting Registry member: [yes/no]
>   Title of proposed motion : "[max. 100 characters]"
>   Short title              : "[max. 30 characters, should also
>                               be the subject of the mail]"
>   Full text of the proposal
>
>
> (3) SCOPE AND NAMING OF MOTION PROPOSALS
>
> Motion proposals addressing issues which are in the
> primary responsibility of a different Supporting
> Organization than the DNSO are not acceptable motions.
> Motion proposals addressing issues which are evidently
> not in the responsibility of ICANN are not acceptable
> motions. The Chair can require an adjustment of the
> title or short title of the motion proposal in a way
> that reflects the content of the proposal.
>
>
> (4) SUPPORTING MOTION PROPOSALS
>
> A motion proposal must be supported by 4 percent of
> the total membership of the DNSO GA Voting Registry
> within four weeks, starting with the announcement on the
> GA mailing list. Statements of support shall be sent to
> ga-motions@dnso.org and should follow this format:
>
>   Supporter name           :
>   Supporter e-mail address :
>   GA Voting Registry member: [yes/no]
>   I support the following
>   motion proposal          : [proposal title]
>
>
> (5) DISCUSSING MOTIONS
>
> When the required number of supporters has been reached,
> the official motion discussion period begins. This does not
> prohibit discussion of the motion before the official
> discussion period starts. The time of the discussion period
> is fourteen days. During the discussion period, the DNSO
> General Assembly has the opportunity to discuss the
> merits and implications of the motion and to develop
> alternative proposals. This period can be extended by
> up to fourteen days by the Chair, especially if there
> is no or very little discussion of the motion.
>
>
> (6) AMENDING MOTIONS
>
> There are two ways of amending motions: Friendly
> amendments must be accepted by the original proponent
> of the motion and not be opposed by more than 1/4
> of the original supporters within a week. Alternatively, a
> motion -- on the same issue as a motion which has met the
> required number of supporters as stated in (4) -- can be
> submitted as a motion proposal, requiring the support of
> 2 percent of the total membership of the DNSO GA Voting
> Registry within two weeks. Voting Registry members can
> support any number of motion proposals. The official
> discussion period for such alternative motions on the
> same topic is seven days and can be extended by up to
> fourteen days.
>
>
> (7) RETRACTING MOTIONS
>
> A motion can be retracted by its original proponent;
> the retraction has to be sent to ga-motions@dnso.org.
> If 3/4 of the original supporters want to keep the
> motion or if support for the motion evidently matches or
> exceeds the number of supporters stated in (4), the
> motion only needs a new proponent to continue in the
> process.
>
>
> (8) MAKING EMERGENCY MOTION PROPOSALS
>
> If a proponent believes that the motion requires
> immediate attention, he/she can note in his motion proposal
> that he/she is proposing an emergency motion. The email
> format for proposing and supporting the motion proposal
> remains the same; the emergency motion proposal must be
> supported by 7 percent of the total membership of the
> DNSO GA Voting Registry within seven days. The discussion
> period lasts seven days and can only be extended by up
> to seven days.
>
>
> (9) APPROVING THE BALLOT
>
> If the required number of GA Voting Registry members
> have expressed their support and the motion has been
> discussed by the GA members, the Chair of the DNSO
> General Assembly will approve a ballot in accordance with
> the DNSO GA Voting Rules. If possible, the Chair shall
> choose a starting date which allows to address all
> current motions, taking into account relevant deadlines
> such as public comment periods or meetings of the ICANN
> Board.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Some answers to possible questions:
>
> Do you have a diagram for this?
>   http://www.icannchannel.de/tmp/motion-voting-rules-01.pdf
>   (55kB) -- hope it's helpful.
>
> Why aren't you using the "Best Practices" document by
> Joanna and Bill?
>   While I find it very useful, I think the rules are too
>   long and difficult to understand, especially for
>   non-native speakers of English. (Actually, I doubt that
>   even 1/10 of the GA members have read them.) On the
>   other hand, I believe that we need rules to process
>   motions *quickly*. The proposed rules are 5kB of text and
>   hopefully easy to understand.
>
> Why is it "easier" to propose an alternative motion on the
> same topic than an "original" motion?
>   If 4% of the Voting Registry members support a motion,
>   this shows considerable interest in an issue -- that's
>   good and indicates that there should be a vote. However,
>   there should also be an incentive to improve the first
>   motion at hand after discussing it. Additionally, it's
>   not sure whether it is so much easier: Keep in mind
>   that the time frame for alternative motion proposals
>   is shorter (2% in *two* weeks). It's not an unfair
>   advantage, since ultimately, the voters decide it by
>   voting. Some have argued that we should achieve
>   consensus by merging all proposed motions into one
>   before the voting. I believe that we can only see if
>   there is consensus *after* the voting; for that reason
>   I don't mind giving the GA voters the choice between
>   several motions.
>
> Why does it take more supporters for an "emergency motion"?
>   I'm not sure if we need emergency motions at all, but
>   if we want to use an abbreviated procedure to deal with
>   issues e.g. directly before an ICANN meeting, we need
>   some checks if we want to give up some of the procedure,
>   allowing less time for discussion.
>
> Why do we need motion process rules at all?
>   Currently, there are no rules to decide when a motion
>   has been formally established, how many supporters are
>   needed, how much time for discussion is needed etc.
>   Consequently, each time there is a vote, we have lots
>   of discussion about how a vote should be run.
>
> Why isn't the voting itself covered?
>   We already have voting rules, voting registry rules and
>   Chair election rules -- see the DNSO site.
>
> Are these rules perfect?
>   [As if someone would actually ask that question...]
>   Of course not, but I think they are much better than the
>   current situation.
>
> So the Chair/Alt.Chair hopes to gain more power, right?
>   Nope. Currently, Thomas and I have to resort to "making
>   up rules as we go along". For instance, there is no
>   rule to guide us how much time we should leave for
>   discussion. This makes (a) GA members unhappy and (b)
>   us unhappy, because we are criticized for whatever
>   decision we make (too little time, too much time etc.)
>
> Have to leave it there,
> /// Alexander
>
>
> --
> 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
>

--
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