DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga-ext] Re: [ga] The IC constituency building results so far [was: stuff]

I'm tempted to say "I'll second that" except for the tendency I've seen
for the following to occur: someone has an idea, pops in with a
motion, and demands a vote. Never mind that many of the people
whose names appear in these various pages may not even be
registered to vote.  (Upon learning of that system a week or so
I ago, I personally rushed in, electrons ablaze, and registered.) The
poll concerning whether to have an IDNHC, which presumably
remains in the offing here, is not a vote, as Leah correctly pointed
out a while back. What I'm suggesting is that things just don't work
that way.

As I understand it, a "vote" occurs when the Chair recognizes an
issue of vital concern and officially announces that fact and (here
I'm guessing) defines some particular time frame within which the
votes of all us hoi polloi should be sent in.  A motion and a second,
while nicely Roberts Rules of Order, just don't apply: who has ever
checked to see whether person X who has "made a motion" and person
Y has "seconded" it are even registered voters? Seems that would
be a requirement. I'm also assuming that the Chair would be the
official "vote counter," and I see nothing wrong with that. On one
or two of the Constituency web sites I've seen announced votes,
the results, and so on, and wonder whether that might be applicable
here.  That is, on the ga pages, the really OFFICIAL notice of a
vote is appears as a line so announcing, that line also being a link
to all the skinny on the subject.

Here in Oregon they have a "Voter's Pamphlet," in which a list of
proponents and opponents of a measure is provided, and then there
are interminable pages of arguments for, arguments against, and also
"objective analyses" from legislative counsel. (If you think this bunch
is raucous, you should have seen the one a few years ago: there was
one on gay rights, and the opponents proceeded to describe in gory,
anatomically specific detail what they thought gay people did. I think
the authors thereof could have been prosecuted for disseminating
pornography, but there it was with the Seal of the great State of
Oregon right on the cover!) In any event, rather than fly off the handle
here, I'd suggest maybe doing something like that, and on an
"arguments" page everyone can provide sound, logical arguments
for their positions one way or the other. (I'm kidding, of course --
everyone could flay away at everyone else and maybe, just maybe,
put some meat into the issue.)

There's likely aspects of ga voting that I'm not aware of, of course,
but if this has not been done, I'd also suggest that the ga pages
devoted to this or any other particular vote also link to the page
that lists the ga registered voters.  The size of that list, one should
have no doubt, would have a direct bearing on the reception the
world at large and particularly the BoD would give to whatever
came out of the vote. And having your name on that list would
be a requirement before posting anything on the "arguments" page
(unlike this ga mail list -- the theory being that one can sound off
here merely by subscribing, but to participate in the nuts and bolts
of the voting process first one has to register).

So I'll just say I agree with what Leah says. Since all of what she
suggests points towards an ultimate vote, whatever might be the
correct voting procedure should be laid out in bold to educate us
newbies or as a reminder to those who are not, and some kind of
forum set up that is dedicated solely to the Question (for which the
only proper responses in the actual vote are a yes or a no), and with
time for people to absorb that issue before the vote is actually taken.

Moreover, one way to set out the Question would be to put into the
arguments page a draft charter or two, or maybe just put in as
examples the links to the several models that are available. However
anyone wanted to set up their own arguments is of course up to them.

But first, get registered to vote, whether any of the above flies or not.
That's where the bona fides of this effort will be judged, and without
a decent showing there nothing else will work. Leah is quite correct
in saying that it will take a lot more than a list, whether this list or a
list of registered voters, to get any attention, but the vehicle do need
tires to move at all.

Bill Lovell

L Gallegos wrote:

> FWIW, I think we need to work on an IDNHC and use whatever we have
> all learned from past efforts.  First of all, what comes first, the chicken
> or the egg?  Will it be a top-down formation where we ask ICANN BoD
> to authorize the constituency first, or form it from THIS LIST, develop a
> charter and then apply?
> Personally, I think we should do both.  I think the BoD should authorize
> the constituency so that it can be formed by the members.  Then
> devleop the charter and submit it for approval.
> Further, it is obvious that the BoD is going to do everything it can to
> disenfranchise any group that advocates individual partipation including
> the at-large and GA.  It's going to take a lot more than a GA list to
> combat this.
> We either come together now and work toward creating something solid
> or we lose to the power that be.  If there is such contentiousness wrt
> IDNO or any other pre-exiting group, then start fresh right now, and as I
> said, use what we have learned from past experience.  Start working on
> a set of guidelines that will be acceptable and workable instead of
> haggling over history.
> >From my perspective, I will use my "delete" key quite a bit.
> Leah

This message was passed to you via the ga-ext@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-ext" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>