[ga-roots] Procedural Issues on Motions

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@corliss.net>]

On Wed, 09 May 2001 12:32:20 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> Motion to amend motion.

My understanding of the general rules of procedure is that the first motion
has called for a seconder.  The floor is therefore with the first motion
until it lapses for want of a second.

Until a motion has been seconded it cannot be amended.  However, the floor
often draws errors in drafting to the attention of the mover who is usually
allowed to reword the motion  Your proposed amendment is much more that a
simple correction.

It would be fillibustering to spend a week voting on each amendment if it's
real intention is to say something quite different to the original motion.
Of course, it would also be fillibustering to force a debate on the
procedural issues needed prior to the substantive debate.

To avoid such unnecessary debate on the procedural issues it is easier to
treat your proposal as a separate motion.  This means there are two
competing motions on the floor.

> Note that debate in the GA can only affect GA statements. Thus, the
> statement should be formulated as a request to the Names Council to
propose
> a policy to the ICANN BoD.

I do not understand the connection between the two sentences.  Why cannot
the DNSO GA address ICANN directly?

> In addition, I (like William) think that this statement does not say what
> the majority of the GA wants it to say. I could be wrong about the
majority....

I believe that there are multiple viewpoints on the alternate roots issue.
These could probably coalesce into two opposing viewpoints.  I doubt that
either would command a majority.

My intention was to formulate a consensus motion more-or-less acceptable to
both groups.  I don't think tht your motion even pretends to do that.  You
are therefore forcing a division instead of a consensus.  Which suggests to
me that we will end up with two opposing motions which can then be put to
the vote.

> "The DNSO GA recommends that the DNSO NC recommend to the ICANN BoD the
> following policy statement:

Even as a two-step process, I'm sure this wording could be improved   In
fact I don't see your statement as a *policy* statement at all but I will
discuss that in the substantive debate.

I'd appreciate separate comments on these procedural issues.

Regards
Patrick Corliss




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