Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1161
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Sunday, May 5 2002             Volume 01 : Number 1161

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 18:34:50 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Time line for a vote; procedures.

I wrote:
>  (1) It should be a statement on ICANN structure, mission, and a 
> possible re-bid.

Let me make this a bit more general: Proposed resolutions should be 
statements the GA may make on perspectives for the coordination of 
assigned names and numbers on the Internet.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler (mobile) <[email-masked]>
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 13:19:59 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Text of the motion...

William Walsh writes: "So that makes it ok to destroy the GA..."

There is no GA within the Lynn Plan.
There is no GA within the recent draft NC recommendations.

There is also no At-Large, and no Individual's Constituency.
Re-bidding the ICANN contracts may be the only way to preserve a GA, to 
establish an At-Large, and to secure representation for individuals.

William seems to think that we don't have a right to express our views 
because such criticism will result in the destruction of our organization.  
Any institution that silences its critics by destroying their public forums 
is not worthy of being retained... if William expects that the GA will be 
destroyed by ICANN just because the membership sees fit to be vocal in their 
outrage, this is all the more reason that the contracts should be re-bid, and 
that the NTIA should find a successor agency to replace ICANN.

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

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 13:48:46 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Reminder: List rules!

Alexander and all,
I absolutely agree with the 5 posting limit and apologize for the oversight
on my part. In mitigation, I would just say that while some of my posts can
be put in the "advocacy" basket, others could be put in the "administration
basket", meaning at least two or three posts were updating the stats on the
Straw Poll and reposting the revised Time Line Guide. Thomas requested a
plain text version since he was operating from a PDA and as a courtesy to
others who may be in similar situation, and being aware of the posting
limit, I asked Kristy to do this for me. She had also kindly prepared a PDF
version as I do not have the capability. This could be viewed as working
around the rules.
No doubt you will agree that those doing strictly admin tasks for the GA is
to be encouraged and helpful, and I don't think they should be chastised for
overstepping their personal quota for that reason, not that I personally
have a problem with it at all, and will be more careful in future.

Regards,
Joanna

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of GA List
> Monitor
> Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 4:44 AM
> To: DNSO General Assembly
> Subject: [ga] Reminder: List rules!
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> several people have been ignoring the posting limit
> on the General Assembly list in the last days:
> Danny Younger (6), James Love (6), Joanna Lane (6),
> William Walsh (8).
>
> I understand that we are currently debating a very
> contentious issue, but I also understand the people
> who have written to me asking for an enforcement of
> the list rules: Five postings per day, calculated
> according to the time zone of the sender.
> (See http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/GA.list-monitoring.html)
>
> Let's not be unfair to those who play by these rules.
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander (wearing the List Monitor hat)
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

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

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 14:31:49 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Motion:  "One-man/One-vote"

Votes currently taken within the DNSO are on the basis of 
one-constituency/three-votes.  This of course excludes the bulk of the 452 
members now subscribed to the GA voting registry that are not members of any 
given constituency, and it excludes all other would-be participants that 
haven't been formally recognized as constituencies.  

I believe in the principle of one-man/one-vote as eminently more democratic, 
and would like to introduce the following motion for discussion:

The General Assembly of the DNSO supports the principle of one-man/one-vote, 
and recommends that this principle be adopted for all decision-making within 
whatever domain name policy-recommending organs emerge in the restructured 
ICANN.

Please note:  This motion does not do away with a Council as a steering 
group, but rather posits the requirement of membership ratification of all 
policy decisions.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 14:40:25 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Motion:  "One-man/One-vote"

> The General Assembly of the DNSO supports the principle of
> one-man/one-vote,
> and recommends that this principle be adopted for all
> decision-making within
> whatever domain name policy-recommending organs emerge in the
> restructured
> ICANN.

Suggestion: Add "or successor agency" at the end of the paragraph, then this
principle is not tied to ICANN.

Regards,
Joanna

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

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 14:42:00 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion:  "One-man/One-vote"

I accept Joanna's suggestion as a friendly amendment.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 14:43:41 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Text of the motion...

Danny, and all GA  members

I don't agree that there is no "GA" contemplated in the work of the 
NC on the draft recommendations; I think, but Thomas and Alex can correct my recollection is that that hasn't been discussed yet.  Earlier, I asked a question about whether the GA might manage issue forums. Other than that, I admit to not having spend enough time on discussing the GA at this point.  

In the last call, I noted that there could be other constituencies but they would have to self organize, have bylaws, etc., like existing constituencies.  That seems to always be the stopping point. The interests of individual domain name holders are so diverse that it very hard for any organizational effort to take hold and grow. That doesn't mean that it can't happen; it means it hasn't happened. 

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 1:20 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Text of the motion...

William Walsh writes: "So that makes it ok to destroy the GA..."

There is no GA within the Lynn Plan.
There is no GA within the recent draft NC recommendations.

There is also no At-Large, and no Individual's Constituency.
Re-bidding the ICANN contracts may be the only way to preserve a GA, to 
establish an At-Large, and to secure representation for individuals.

William seems to think that we don't have a right to express our views 
because such criticism will result in the destruction of our organization.  
Any institution that silences its critics by destroying their public forums 
is not worthy of being retained... if William expects that the GA will be 
destroyed by ICANN just because the membership sees fit to be vocal in their 
outrage, this is all the more reason that the contracts should be re-bid, and 
that the NTIA should find a successor agency to replace ICANN.

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

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

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 15:14:23 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Text of the motion...

Those looking to see what alternative structures were considered during
the original bid process should investigate the submissions made by BWG
and ORSC.

Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> 
>          1. I agree with Jamie's proposal.  We don't know, at this point,
> what sort of structure a rebid might generate.  But I believe that a rebid
> is more likely to generate a good structure than is the Committee on ICANN
> Evolution and Reform.  The issue presented by the proposal is not what
> ICANN's new structure should be, but rather which *forum* should be
> deciding how to address ICANN's self-acknowledged crisis.  I trust the
> rebid process to generate a workable structure much more than I trust the
> Board.
> 
>          2. That said, Thomas is right about process.  I say this as
> somebody who has been a member of this list, and participating in its
> processes, since before we called it the ga list (back when it was
> [email-masked]).  The proposal is on the table.  People who support it
> should not only say so; they should say *why*.  People who don't support it
> should not only say so; they should say *why*.  People should respond to
> each other's arguments.  When the discussion has come to rest, we can have
> a vote; alternatively, it may be appropriate to have a vote even before
> we've entirely come to rest, so that we can have a timely voice in events
> going on outside of us.  But that decision, in the first instance, belongs
> to Thomas.  Right now, the job of proponents of the proposal is to explain
> why it's a good idea; Michael and Jamie have begun this.  The more people
> do this, the stronger will be the indication that a vote would show rough
> consensus.  If opponents of the proposal set out cogent analyses of why
> it's a bad idea, proponents can respond.  Discussion can go on so long as
> it appears to be useful.  If almost nobody posts such analyses in
> opposition, the discussion will be short.
> 
> Jon
> 
> At 09:53 AM 5/3/2002 -0400, James Love wrote:
> 
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
> >There has been a fair amount of debate on the process, but
> >practically no such debate on the contents of your motion.  You
> >could begin such a debate by actually responding to the comments I
> >made earlier.  See below.
> >
> > > _Suggesting_ radical changes is one thing, _adopting_ them is an
> > > entirely different thing.  In particular, calling for a re-bid at
> > > this point of time would amount to a vote of no confidence in the
> > > entire ICANN structure as we know it.  Such a vote of no confidence
> > > would most likely remove the GA's (small) possibilities to influence
> > > the process in any reasonable manner.  (To draw the parallel: The GA
> > > would be - legitimately! - shocked if it was dissolved for
> > > _suggesting_ radical changes, such as a re-bid.)
> >
> >    In fact, I am asking for a vote of no confidence.  I will point out that
> >people asked for a vote of no confidence in the ICANN board after Accra, and
> >you would not permit such a vote.   This isn't the old Soviet Union.  We
> >should be allowed to record votes in opposition, not only in support of the
> >leadership.
> >
> > >
> > > If you insist on such a vote, I'd suggest that the vote should ask
> > > for a rebid under the condition that ICANN actually moves to _adopt_
> > > radical changes which seem inconsistent with the white paper's
> > > _fundamental_ _principles_.
> >
> >       Thank you, but no thanks.  The board has already eliminated the at
> >large elections and failed to implement the independent review.   IMO, those
> >are radical changes.   All we have left are these non-binding straw polls,
> >and we can't even get those from the GA.
> >
> > >
> > > There are two possible ways of implementing this.  Either, such a
> > > vote could be held now, and explicitly list the principles the GA
> > > wants to see preserved.  Or, the vote could be held when ICANN
> > > actually crosses the Rubicon.  (Some will, of course, argue that it
> > > already has done so.)
> > >
> >
> >         See above.
> >
> >
> > > There is one more thing one should keep in mind: There is no
> > > guarantee that the winner of a re-bid would be better than the
> > > current, or a reformed, ICANN.  I'd suggest that the GA doesn't ask
> > > for a re-bid unless it has reason to believe that such a re-bid
> > > would actually lead to an improvement.  Giving such reasons is up to
> > > you, James.
> >
> >             There are plenty of reasons to be optimistic about a rebid.  The
> >comments by the numbering entities, the comments by the Chair of the IETF,
> >and widespread opposition to the Lynn proposal are things that would have
> >more currency in a competitive rebid, than within the insular ICANN
> >Committee on Reform Process.    I have met with DoC twice about this,
> >including yesterday.  I think that DoC is committed to a solution that has
> >global sharing of DNS management, and is aware of many civil society
> >concerns about the Lynn proposal.  Of course, if there is change, it is
> >possible that anything can happen.  Some people, including the board, don't
> >like elections, because they don't know who will win.  Same is true in a
> >recompete..... you don't know for sure going in.    I personally think a
> >rebid would spur the ICANN board to be more responsive to their critics, to
> >win the rebid.  I think also that non-profits should be permitted to fail.
> >
> >  However, at the end of the day, this is a controversial topic.   Some
> >persons probably want ICANN as it is, or the Lynn proposal, or are extremely
> >risk averse.  In a vote, people can vote yes or no.    But look, if the GA
> >won't allow votes like this, lets just be clear about that too.   It will be
> >one more avenue for expression of popular will that ICANN has closed off.
> >And for what reason?  I would actually be surprised if a majority of GA
> >members supported a rebid.  Many of the GA members probably consider
> >themselves ICANN insiders, prefer to deal with the devil they know, or just
> >don't like the US Department of Commerce.
> >
> >   Jamie
> >
> >  --------------------------------
> >James Love mailto:[email-masked]
> >http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> >Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> >("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 12:22:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion:  "One-PERSON/One-vote"

Hello,

- --- [email-masked] wrote:
> I believe in the principle of one-man/one-vote as eminently more

Let us not forget there are a lot of women who participate! How about
the phrase "one-person/one-vote" instead?

Sincerely,

Geore Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 15:40:28 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion:  "One-PERSON/One-vote"

I accept the suggestion of George Kirikos as a friendly amendment. 
 
The revised motion should now read:
 
The General Assembly of the DNSO supports the principle of 
one-person/one-vote, and recommends that this principle be adopted for all 
decision-making within whatever domain name policy-recommending organs that 
emerge in either the restructured ICANN or in a successor agency.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 16:25:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Registrars' draft paper on reform

I understand them to recommend not 'retaining' them so much as
'transforming' them into members of the appointing committee (misnamed as
noncom)?

On Sat, 4 May 2002, Alexander Svensson wrote:

> 
> For those who haven't seen in on ICANNwatch:
> http://www.icannwatch.org/essays/registrar-draft35-restructure.doc
> 
> (Interestingly, they recommend preliminarily retaining the current 
> At Large directors.)
> 
> /// Alexander
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's hot here.<--

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

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 14:57:22 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2002-05-02 11:34:23 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
>> James Love is seeking, in his words, "to establish how the GA  
>> members feel about the issue," which is precisely the kind of  query 
>> that simple polls are designed to answer, and they need no formal 
>> sequence of steps to get established.
>
>
> James Love, more recently, also wrote this:
>
>> I am asking for a vote.  We can address what is on the ballot if  we 
>> can agree that there will be a vote.
>
>
> That doesn't sound like a request for a simple _poll_ to me. 

Well, I don't know what else you'd call it.  On the rebid issue, is a 
vote wanted or not? (Or shall the babble continue?)
 If so, then James Love and whoever can go to work on what might be 
proposed as a formal motion.

Bill Lovell

>
>

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

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 15:11:45 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

What I hope is facetiously designated as "dialogue mode" below is the 
only thing that
ga@dnso has ever done, and where has that gotten it? A systematic procedure
that first ascertains real interest (which Joanna Lane opines has 
already been shown,
and she's likely right), and then seeks specific proposals to be 
discussed and when
finally expressed as a motion is ultimately debated, should be followed. 
 But it is a
mistake, in my opinion, to name what one starts out with as a "Motion," 
for which
there has in fact been no opportunity for discussion. I would concur 
with Tom if the
James Love proposal were treated as just that; so doing would not yet 
implicate the
formality of the DSNO Secretariat, but a Vote on a Motion would, with 
all of the
attendant formality and restrictions.

Bill Lovell

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2002-05-02 17:54:06 -0400, James Love wrote:
>
>> It will give the GA members a voice.  I don't care what your  
>> personal views are on the merits of the proposal I would like  voted on. 
>
>
> Likewise, I don't care what your personal views are on what the GA  
> should vote on.
>
> That said, could we please return to dialogue mode, and try to get a 
> motion onto the table which would enable the GA to make a  
> _constructive_ contribution?  If you want help and suggestions for  
> this, please refer to my original reply to your motion.  If you  don't 
> want that help, that's your problem.
>

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

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 15:20:44 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

- --------------090103050708030901030408
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

To conduct a poll does not require the permission of anyone. Neither, 
under Best Practices,
is it possible to "make up rules as they go along." No ICANN arcanities 
are involved.
The process is under the "control" of those interested enough to get 
involved. What comes
out of all that are one or more thoroughly discussed Motions that are 
then to be formally
debated, and whichever one survives, if any, is then sought to be 
entered into the formal
DNSO Secretariat procedure through the ga Chair..

See: http:///www.cerebalaw.com/BPIial.htm

Bill Lovell

James Love wrote:

>Thomas, you have already expressed views on the issue, which is fine.  Now
>what exactly does one have to do to get a vote out of the GA?      I made a
>motion.....   do I have to make lots of motions?   Is there a form the
>motion has to follow?   Is there some special acarne rule I have to follow
>to ask this body to express its views on a pretty simple issue?   You
>offered to help....  ok.  Help me do this is a way that gets us to an
>anctual vote on rebidding the DOC agreements with ICANN.   Is there some
>magic number of seconds I need to get a vote?  Is everyone just making this
>up as they go along?
>
>Jamie
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
>To: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
>Cc: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>; "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>;
>"General assembly list" <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 6:54 PM
>Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract
>
>
>>On 2002-05-02 17:54:06 -0400, James Love wrote:
>>
>>>It will give the GA members a voice.  I don't care what your
>>>personal views are on the merits of the proposal I would like
>>>voted on.
>>>
>>Likewise, I don't care what your personal views are on what the GA
>>should vote on.
>>
>>That said, could we please return to dialogue mode, and try to get a
>>motion onto the table which would enable the GA to make a
>>_constructive_ contribution?  If you want help and suggestions for
>>this, please refer to my original reply to your motion.  If you
>>don't want that help, that's your problem.
>>
>>--
>>Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
>>--
>>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

- --------------090103050708030901030408
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
To conduct a poll does not require the permission of anyone. Neither, under
Best Practices,<br>
is it possible to "make up rules as they go along." No ICANN arcanities are
involved.<br>
The process is under the "control" of those interested enough to get involved.
What comes <br>
out of all that are one or more thoroughly discussed Motions that are <i>
then</i> to be formally <br>
debated, and whichever one survives, if any, is then sought to be entered
into the formal<br>
DNSO Secretariat procedure through the ga Chair.. <br>
<br>
See: http:///www.cerebalaw.com/BPIial.htm<br>
<br>
Bill Lovell<br>
<br>
James Love wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:[email-masked]">
  <pre wrap="">Thomas, you have already expressed views on the issue, which is fine.  Now<br>what exactly does one have to do to get a vote out of the GA?      I made a<br>motion.....   do I have to make lots of motions?   Is there a form the<br>motion has to follow?   Is there some special acarne rule I have to follow<br>to ask this body to express its views on a pretty simple issue?   You<br>offered to help....  ok.  Help me do this is a way that gets us to an<br>anctual vote on rebidding the DOC agreements with ICANN.   Is there some<br>magic number of seconds I need to get a vote?  Is everyone just making this<br>up as they go along?<br><br>Jamie<br><br><br>----- Original Message -----<br>From: "Thomas Roessler" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email-masked]">&lt;[email-masked]&gt;</a><br>To: "James Love" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email-masked]">&lt;[email-masked]&gt;</a><br>Cc: "William S. Lovell
" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email-masked]">&lt;[email-masked]&gt;</a>; "Joanna Lane" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email-masked]">&lt;[email-masked]&gt;</a>;<br>"General assembly list" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email-masked]">&lt;[email-masked]&gt;</a><br>Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 6:54 PM<br>Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract<br><br><br></pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">On 2002-05-02 17:54:06 -0400, James Love wrote:<br><br></pre>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">It will give the GA members a voice.  I don't care what your<br>personal views are on the merits of the proposal I would like<br>voted on.<br></pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">Likewise, I don't care what your personal views are on what the GA<br>should vote on.<br><br>That said, could we please return to dialogue mode, and try to get a<br>motion onto the table which would enable the GA to make a<br>_constructive_ contribution?  If you want help and suggestions for<br>this, please refer to my original reply to your motion.  If you<br>don't want that help, that's your problem.<br><br>--<br>Thomas Roessler                          <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://log.does-not-exist.org/">http://log.does-not-exist.org/</a><br>--<br>This message was passed to you via the <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a> list.<br>Send mail to <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a> to unsubscribe<br>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).<br>Archives at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www
.dnso.org/archives.html</a><br><br><br><br></pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap=""><!----><br><br><br></pre>
      </blockquote>
      <br>
      </body>
      </html>

- --------------090103050708030901030408--

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

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 18:36:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Time line for a vote; procedures.

On Sat, 4 May 2002, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> I would suggest that the ballot should be opened for several possible 
> resolutions on the topic of reform and a possible re-bid of ICANN 
> functions, plus the option not to accept any of the resolutions.  For 
> the evaluation of the vote, there are two possibilities (which only 
> differ if there is more than one resolution on the table):  (1) one vote 
> per member; a resolution which has more than 50% of the votes is 
> accepted [note that there can be at most one such resolution], (2) 
> preferential voting like what we are using for person elections, with 
> the top resolution being deemed to be accepted.  (Please comment.)

	Neither of these, I'd suggest.  The problem with (1) is that if
two or more of the resolutions on the ballot are essentially similar, they
may split the vote so that neither gets a majority, even though a
substantial majority of the body in fact favors at least one of them.  
The problem with (2) is that the IRV system we use for candidate elections
is designed with the goal of producing a winner in every election.  
That's not good for this sort of issue poll, since it may be we are so
fragmented that there is *no* position that a majority supports -- in that
case, there should be no winner.  My suggestion:  Allow members to vote
yes/no on *each* resolution, and then see if any of the resolutions
capture a substantial majority of those voting.

Jon

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

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 16:11:06 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] unsubscribe

unsubscribe

The five post rule makes absolutely no sense.

Joanna, William, James are restricted when an issue is at hand?

Yet the great dictator TR can post as many as he wants.

that is total bullshit.

Eric

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

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 18:32:33 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Time line for a vote; procedures.

- --------------050201060704080005070509
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Under the Best Practices (BP) procedure, once it is agreed upon that an 
Issue is ripe
for treatment, as evidenced, e.g., by the results of a Poll, then the 
"floor" is open
for Proposals. Since the Poll seems to be heading towards keeping going, 
when
that result is announced James Love can re-enter his "Motion" as a 
Proposal, or
in tracking this whole bit Joanna could simply recognize the one James 
already
posted as constituting a Proposal. Through Debate, that Proposal could end
up being amended, or alternative Proposals could be advanced. If more than
one Proposal were finalized (and hence Accepted), and it was clear that 
neither
one negated the other, both could be Recognized as Motions to be Debated.
(Conflicting Proposals would have to be run through a Poll.) Otherwise, both
would proceed on separate Ballots.  A person favoring A over B would vote
on both, with a "Yes" for A and a "No" for B -- there would be no vote 
splitting.
The procedure you suggest, Jonathan, is exactly what Best Practices provides
- -- see esp. http://www.cerebalaw.com/BPIVial.htm.

With regard to there being "no winner" as you suggest below, that result 
is fully
anticipated by BP.  It is a mechanism either for reaching and indeed 
demonstrating
consensus, or showing that none exists.

(Your suggestion I would say is well taken, but one of the reasons for 
establishing
a fixed procedure such as BP is to preclude changes in the process in 
the course
of any procedure -- in ga@dnso I've seen arbitrary changes made in 
mid-stream,
and no one knew what the rules were.  That "the ga has no procedure" has 
been
expressed innumerable times. Your suggestion happens to square precisely 
with
BP, so no change is involved with the process initiated by Joanna, but 
heaven only
knows what other suggestions might show up.  (And ALL, of course, would be
welcome, but maybe to be implemented in the NEXT trial run of  BP. This run
is intended not only to see whether consensus can be reached on the 
exact wording
of a Motion ultimately to be submitted to the GA Chair for entry into 
the mechanisms
of ICANN/DNSO, but also to see how well BP as presently written can 
handle an
issue such as the one at hand.

The discussion I've seen so far has been delightfully chaotic, which is 
expressive
of a democracy, but today I received a Ballot in the mail for an 
election here in
Oregon -- a more rowdy outfit is hard to find! -- and even here the 
rules are
fixed.)

Bill (I think that's five) Lovell

Jonathan Weinberg wrote:

>On Sat, 4 May 2002, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
>>I would suggest that the ballot should be opened for several possible 
>>resolutions on the topic of reform and a possible re-bid of ICANN 
>>functions, plus the option not to accept any of the resolutions.  For 
>>the evaluation of the vote, there are two possibilities (which only 
>>differ if there is more than one resolution on the table):  (1) one vote 
>>per member; a resolution which has more than 50% of the votes is 
>>accepted [note that there can be at most one such resolution], (2) 
>>preferential voting like what we are using for person elections, with 
>>the top resolution being deemed to be accepted.  (Please comment.)
>>
>
>	Neither of these, I'd suggest.  The problem with (1) is that if
>two or more of the resolutions on the ballot are essentially similar, they
>may split the vote so that neither gets a majority, even though a
>substantial majority of the body in fact favors at least one of them.  
>The problem with (2) is that the IRV system we use for candidate elections
>is designed with the goal of producing a winner in every election.  
>That's not good for this sort of issue poll, since it may be we are so
>fragmented that there is *no* position that a majority supports -- in that
>case, there should be no winner.  My suggestion:  Allow members to vote
>yes/no on *each* resolution, and then see if any of the resolutions
>capture a substantial majority of those voting.
>
>Jon
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

- --------------050201060704080005070509
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
Under the Best Practices (BP) procedure, once it is agreed upon that an Issue
is ripe<br>
for treatment, as evidenced, e.g., by the results of a Poll, then the "floor"
is open<br>
for Proposals. Since the Poll seems to be heading towards keeping going,
when<br>
that result is announced James Love can re-enter his "Motion" as a Proposal,
or<br>
in tracking this whole bit Joanna could simply recognize the one James already<br>
posted as constituting a Proposal. Through Debate, that Proposal could end<br>
up being amended, or alternative Proposals could be advanced. If more than<br>
one Proposal were finalized (and hence Accepted), and it was clear that neither
<br>
one negated the other, both could be Recognized as Motions to be Debated.
<br>
(Conflicting Proposals would have to be run through a Poll.) Otherwise, both<br>
would proceed on separate Ballots. &nbsp;A person favoring A over B would vote<br>
on both, with a "Yes" for A and a "No" for B -- there would be no vote splitting.<br>
The procedure you suggest, Jonathan, is exactly what Best Practices provides<br>
- -- see esp. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.cerebalaw.com/BPIVial.htm">http://www.cerebalaw.com/BPIVial.htm</a>.<br>
<br>
With regard to there being "no winner" as you suggest below, that result
is fully<br>
anticipated by BP. &nbsp;It is a mechanism either for reaching and indeed demonstrating<br>
consensus, or showing that none exists.<br>
<br>
(Your suggestion I would say is well taken, but one of the reasons for establishing<br>
a fixed procedure such as BP is to preclude changes in the process in the
course<br>
of any procedure -- in ga@dnso I've seen arbitrary changes made in mid-stream,<br>
and no one knew what the rules were. &nbsp;That "the ga <i>has no</i> procedure"
has been<br>
expressed innumerable times. Your suggestion happens to square precisely
with<br>
BP, so no change is involved with the process initiated by Joanna, but heaven
only<br>
knows what other suggestions might show up. &nbsp;(And ALL, of course, would be<br>
welcome, but maybe to be implemented in the NEXT trial run of &nbsp;BP. This run<br>
is intended not only to see whether consensus can be reached on the exact
wording<br>
of a Motion ultimately to be submitted to the GA Chair for entry into the
mechanisms<br>
of ICANN/DNSO, but also to see how well BP as presently written can handle
an<br>
issue such as the one at hand.<br>
<br>
The discussion I've seen so far has been delightfully chaotic, which is expressive<br>
of a democracy, but today I received a Ballot in the mail for an election
here in<br>
Oregon -- a more rowdy outfit is hard to find! -- and even here the rules
are<br>
fixed.)<br>
<br>
Bill (I think that's five) Lovell<br>
<br>
Jonathan Weinberg wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:[email-masked]">
  <pre wrap="">On Sat, 4 May 2002, Thomas Roessler wrote:<br></pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">I would suggest that the ballot should be opened for several possible <br>resolutions on the topic of reform and a possible re-bid of ICANN <br>functions, plus the option not to accept any of the resolutions.  For <br>the evaluation of the vote, there are two possibilities (which only <br>differ if there is more than one resolution on the table):  (1) one vote <br>per member; a resolution which has more than 50% of the votes is <br>accepted [note that there can be at most one such resolution], (2) <br>preferential voting like what we are using for person elections, with <br>the top resolution being deemed to be accepted.  (Please comment.)<br></pre>
    </blockquote>
    <pre wrap=""><!----><br>	Neither of these, I'd suggest.  The problem with (1) is that if<br>two or more of the resolutions on the ballot are essentially similar, they<br>may split the vote so that neither gets a majority, even though a<br>substantial majority of the body in fact favors at least one of them.  <br>The problem with (2) is that the IRV system we use for candidate elections<br>is designed with the goal of producing a winner in every election.  <br>That's not good for this sort of issue poll, since it may be we are so<br>fragmented that there is *no* position that a majority supports -- in that<br>case, there should be no winner.  My suggestion:  Allow members to vote<br>yes/no on *each* resolution, and then see if any of the resolutions<br>capture a substantial majority of those voting.<br><br>Jon<br><br>--<br>This message was passed to you via the <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a> list.<br>Send mail to <a class="mo
z-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a> to unsubscribe<br>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).<br>Archives at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a><br><br><br></pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    </body>
    </html>

- --------------050201060704080005070509--

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

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1161
*************************