Re: [ga-roots] Re: Procedural Issues on Motions

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

Hi Harald

Thanks for the reply.  Can we agree on the following ?

> It can be regarded as an opposing motion, if you prefer that.
> > This means there are two competing motions on the floor.
> Both of which could use further work, probably.

There MAY BE a possible consensus motion.  Meanwhile we will treat it as two
opposing motions both of which might need work.  If they can be merged later
that will be good.  If not we will put them to the vote as "opposing
motions".  Vote one or the other.

> > > 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.

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

Let's just assume that we are speaking for the DNSO as a whole and the
procedure is to get the Names Council to vote on it.  The "DNSO recommends"
can be assumed.  The proposed policy recommendation to ICANN can start along
the lines of:

Whereas the General Assembly and the Names Council have both debated the
issue and each of them has put it to a vote . . . blah blah

The Domain Name Supporting Organisation (DNSO) recommends that ICANN adopt
the following statement as its official policy:

THAT . . . <whatever the GA agrees upon>.

> >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.

Thanks Harald.  I'm sure we'd welcome a more thoughtful process ;-)

Best 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