[ga-roots] Re: Procedural Issues on Motions

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

At 00:58 10.05.2001 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>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.

There are, unfortunately, no such general rules of procedure, and we 
haven't made any either.
Robert's rules of order are, as has been pointed out a hundred times, 
inappropriate for the electronic medium.

>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 can be regarded as an opposing motion, if you prefer that.

>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.

Yes, the procedural issues need to be debated on ga-int, not here.
Here and now, we have to go on with the lack of procedure we have lived 
with for years.

>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.

Both of which could use further work, probably.

> > 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?

Because the DNSO, not the DNSO GA, is the organization charged to give 
advice to the Board. The GA is *part* of the DNSO.

> > 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.

Right. I think there is a clear majority in one camp, and any vote we take 
should allow us to realize which camp that is. I THINK it is "mine", but I 
have been wrong before.

> > "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.

Probably. It did not take me long to write it.


>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