[ga-roots] Re: [ga] Proposal for moving forward

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

Jonathan Weinberg wrote:

Bill,

         I think you misunderstood my earlier message (below).   My
suggestion wasn't that we need consensus before we can vote.  Rather, it
was that if we have consensus (as determined by the chair), we don't *need*
to vote.

Jon

I may have, Jon. And just to clarify, when I said that "The premise seems
to be
that there must already have been reached what looks like a 'consensus'
approval of an Issue before there can be a vote on it.  If that
were the case,
why have the Vote?,"  I was referring only to the formal DNSO
process,
and really speaking hypothetically, from a "philosophical" (?) point
of view.
I was balking at conducting pro forma exercises, using up DNSO
resources,
on something on which the outcome is already known.  Waste.

At the same time, I agree entirely with Joanna and Roeland that there must
be some numerical indication, other than counting up emails, which shows
the general position of the MEMBERS involved.  Whether something has
been elevated to this level or that should not be the decision solely of the
Chair or Alternate Chair, while on the other hand, if a poll showed (and
here's that word again!) "consensus" that a PROPOSAL or a MOTION
should be RECOGNIZED, then the Chair could do so with confidence.
The Best Practices provides for the interjection of a poll whenever that
seems warranted -- a GA SECRETARIAT would adjust the TIME LINE
to accommodate the same, and the present situation shows very well the
fact that the Best Practices can indeed be a useful tool. If followed, a
subsequent, real DEBATE on the ISSUE could well lead to a MOTION
that would indeed justify a DNSO administered VOTE that would involve
the entire General Assembly membership.

Ad hoc procedures that garner email support and are then rushed to a vote
are not the way to go.  However intended, they always bear the possible
"taint" that what's involved is really some narrow little clique of people who
are trying to "railroad" something through for their own perceived benefit.
"Consensus" cannot be claimed with respect to any such procedure.

Bill

 

At 10:19 AM 7/17/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>I concur on the allowance of more time for discussing the issue, even
>though I believe it now to be a foregone conclusion, and have given
>my "yeah" on the poll.  However, I think there is a fundamental flaw
>in the thinking of just about everyone here.
>
>The premise seems to be that there must already have been reached
>what looks like a "consensus" approval of an Issue before there can be
>a vote on it. If that were the case, why have the Vote? I don't believe
>that Votes (i.e., an individual voting event, not your vote or mine) are,
>ever have been (except here), or should be, merely a rubber stamping
>process on an Issue that has already been decided.  What justifies a
>Vote is not pre-approval of the outcome, but rather the existence of
>an Issue on which there has been expressed wide spread interest, and
>involving a matter of real substance.
>
>There will come the day when some such Issue will be roundly opposed,
>and the apparent "consensus" will be that whatever it is should never
>happen.  That circumstance would be just as proper for the carrying out
>of a Vote as the opposite -- the people who oppose some proposition
>have as much right to get their views expressed definitively in a Vote as
>do those who support any such proposition.
>
>There will be other circumstances in which the outcome of a Vote could
>not be predicted in advance. And that, of course, is the fundamental
>reason why Votes are carried out in the first place. This notion of only
>agreeing to have a Vote when it appears that the "yeahs" have it is really
>quite a perversion of the whole concept of democracy.
>
>Bill Lovell
>
>Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>>On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 13:12:26 +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:
>> >      it seems there is general agreement with the spirit
>> >        of Patrick's motion. Joanna Lana has raised concerns
>> >        about the wording, but it seems nobody has argued
>> >        that procedural issues /should/ be discussed on the
>> >        GA main list instead of GA-rules.
>> >        Why don't we simply agree to *follow* the rules until
>> >        such time when we have the resources and time to vote
>> >        on it and use the voting mechanism instead for those
>> >        issues which need to be voted on *now*? (I assume we will
>> >        not agree on a UDRP Task Force representative by debate...)
>> >        So, if you agree, *DON'T* reply to this mail on the
>> >        main GA list:
>> >        [snip]
>>
>>          Since Alexander's call for quiet doesn't seem to have worked . . .
>>I think the emphasis -- on all sides -- on taking this motion to a formal
>>vote is misplaced.  We've so far managed to avoid a knock-down, drag-out
>>debate on the structure and functioning of the ga (should it act like an
>>IETF working group? like a national parliament?), but it seems to me that
>>in general, it's the job of the Chair to determine when the group has
>>reached rough consensus on a matter like this one, so that we can move
>>on.  The choice of exactly how he makes the determination should be largely
>>up to him (straw votes can be helpful sometimes, but other times
>>not).  This motion has only been on the mailing list for a couple of days
>>now, which is too soon to make a judgment of rough consensus. Once a week
>>has gone by, though, if the "hum" remains as one-sided as it's been so far,
>>I think it would be fully appropriate for Danny to conclude that the
>>proposal is adopted by rough consensus.
>>
>>Jon
>>
>>--
>>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>http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>--
>Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
>to the reader may possibly be explained at:
>"WHAT IS": <http://whatis.techtarget.com/>http://whatis.techtarget.com/
>GLOSSARY:
><http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm>http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm
>
>

--
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm