Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1188
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, May 13 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1188

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

Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 16:55:43 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

Ted,

At 13.05.2002 09:37, t byfield wrote:
>thomas, this is a really strange -- and totally unnecessary -- method 
>to announce so suddenly. what *should* be a yes/no/abstain VOTE ON a 
>resolution is, by these rules, transformed into a COMPETITION BETWEEN 
>resolutions. the 'suddenness' of this method is a by-product of the 
>lack of structure that has characterized this non-process so far. and 
>i won't even get into the 50% rule, which strikes me as an effort to
>determine the outcome by adopting an arbitrarily complex method.

Actually, if you have read the GA list, you will have noticed
that this has already been debated.
Thomas offered two alternatives: Preferential voting (as used
for person elections, which probably isn't as suitable for
such issue votes) and "one vote per member plus 50% rule".
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00712.html

Jonathan Weinberg proposed a different approach.
>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. 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00736.html

To which James Love replied:
>I had not studied the specifics of the proceedure closely, and the 
>system set out by Jonathan Weinberg makes the most sense.
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00748.html

About the 50 percent rule which you call "arbitrarily complex":
I cannot understand what you mean by that. If neither motion
is approved by a majority of the voters, you will surely
not consider them approved by the GA? Every motion obviously
needs more Yes than No votes and abstentions!

Best regards,
/// Alexander

- --
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: Mon, 13 May 2002 16:51:27 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposal for ballot text # 3

- --=======66C92F3B=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-73812BE2; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

At 15:10 13/05/02, James Love wrote:
>"The GA wishes to express its confidence in the ICANN board of directors to
>address the reform process, and agrees with the general direction of the
>Committeee on ICANN reform work so far."

Dear James,
I certainly share your respect for Alejandro what the first part of the 
sentence deal with. But,

1) either you say you want a rebid to get another team with the same 
mission, and you distrust the BoD - but you may trust the Committee

2) or you say that only a rebid will give a chance to the current team to 
have a clear definition of their mission and you mean that our nice 
Committee cannot work in a properly defined direction.

I know that many are supporting 1. I myself support 2.  But in both cases 
you cannot say that you agree with the ICANN reform work so far, all the 
more than hey just published (biasedn will say some) questions.

jfc

- --=======66C92F3B=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-73812BE2
Content-Disposition: inline

- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02

- --=======66C92F3B=======--

- --
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: Mon, 13 May 2002 17:05:34 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposal for ballot text # 3

James,

I believe that you are adding confusion now. What we can 
vote on are *motions*, not hypothetical anti-positions
as "suggested ballot texts". Or is this really supposed
to be the second *motion* by James Love?

Regards,
/// Alexander

At 13.05.2002 09:10, James Love wrote:
>As indicated earlier, I support the following text to be included on the
>ballot, which would provide for a pro-BOD text, so that a range of views can
>be presented on the ballot.  I would personally vote against this text, but
>support its inclusion on the ballot.
>
>People who want to support Suggested Ballot Text # 3 should indicate so by
>24:00 pacific time today.
>
>====Suggested Ballot text # 3================
>"The GA wishes to express its confidence in the ICANN board of directors to
>address the reform process, and agrees with the general direction of the
>Committeee on ICANN reform work so far."
>======================================
>
>--------------------------------
>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

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

Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 08:15:11 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposal for ballot text # 3

And thus further confuse the issue by trying to make this appear to be
an either or question, either you support the board or you support the
cptech sponsored motion.

Nice political play, Jamie.

Monday, May 13, 2002, 6:10:04 AM, James Love wrote:

> As indicated earlier, I support the following text to be included on the
> ballot, which would provide for a pro-BOD text, so that a range of views can
> be presented on the ballot.  I would personally vote against this text, but
> support its inclusion on the ballot.

> People who want to support Suggested Ballot Text # 3 should indicate so by
> 24:00 pacific time today.

> ====Suggested Ballot text # 3================
> "The GA wishes to express its confidence in the ICANN board of directors to
> address the reform process, and agrees with the general direction of the
> Committeee on ICANN reform work so far."
> ======================================

> --------------------------------
> 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

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.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

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

Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 08:16:10 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

Monday, May 13, 2002, 2:20:20 AM, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> 3. To evaluate the vote, we'll mostly follow Jonathan Weinberg's  
> earlier suggestion: You'll be able to vote on each resolution.  The 
> resolution which gets most "yes" votes will be considered to have 
> been accepted, under the additional condition that more than 50% of 
> voters accepted it.

I strongly object to this.  The GA operates by consensus, and no
definition of consensus I've ever seen defines it as 50% plus 1
support, but instead requiring it to have vastly more support, usually
no less than 2/3 of those voting.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.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

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

Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 08:18:18 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

Thomas,

I and others on this list are still waiting for your response to my
point on procedure which challenges whether this motion is outside the
scope of the GA or not.

You have no only failed to rule on the challenge, but you have failed
to even acknowledge the legitimate challenge to the topicality of this
motion.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.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

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

Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 11:19:43 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposal for ballot text # 3

Jefsey,      I was under the impression we are getting text onto a ballot.
Right now we have 2 items, the one asking DoC for a rebid, and the
"moderate" one by Alexander.  I was suggesting a third alternative, which
was a pro-BOD.

I did not want to create conflusion, and no problem if people don't like
this idea.  However, this was the thinking.

Have 3 texts on the ballot, one asking for rebid, the "moderate" alexnader
one, and a third which is a vote of confidence in the BOD/staff direction,
and see which of  the three posistions generate support.    The #3 is the
opposite of a vote of confidence, but of course, a failure to receive
support is a message too.

 But, having a vote on only #1 and #2 is ok with me too.

Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "jefsey" <[email-masked]>
To: "James Love" <[email-masked]>; "General assembly list"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposal for ballot text # 3

: At 15:10 13/05/02, James Love wrote:
: >"The GA wishes to express its confidence in the ICANN board of directors
to
: >address the reform process, and agrees with the general direction of the
: >Committeee on ICANN reform work so far."
:
: Dear James,
: I certainly share your respect for Alejandro what the first part of the
: sentence deal with. But,
:
: 1) either you say you want a rebid to get another team with the same
: mission, and you distrust the BoD - but you may trust the Committee
:
: 2) or you say that only a rebid will give a chance to the current team to
: have a clear definition of their mission and you mean that our nice
: Committee cannot work in a properly defined direction.
:
: I know that many are supporting 1. I myself support 2.  But in both cases
: you cannot say that you agree with the ICANN reform work so far, all the
: more than hey just published (biasedn will say some) questions.
:
: jfc
:

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

:
: ---
: Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
: Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02
:

- --
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: Mon, 13 May 2002 17:25:49 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposal for ballot text # 3

On Mon, 13 May 2002 09:10:04 -0400, you wrote:

>As indicated earlier, I support the following text to be included on the
>ballot, which would provide for a pro-BOD text, so that a range of views can
>be presented on the ballot.  I would personally vote against this text, but
>support its inclusion on the ballot.

Same for me. I support the inclusion of this text in the ballot.

>====Suggested Ballot text # 3================
>"The GA wishes to express its confidence in the ICANN board of directors to
>address the reform process, and agrees with the general direction of the
>Committeee on ICANN reform work so far."
>======================================
- -- 
.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo vb.
Vittorio Bertola     <[email-masked]>    Ph. +39 011 23381220
Vitaminic [The Music Evolution] - Vice President for Technology

DISCLAIMER, PLEASE NOTE: This communication is intended only for use by the
addressee. It may contain confidential or privileged information. 
Transmission, distribution and/or copy cannot be permitted. Please notify
immediately the sender by replying if you are not the intended recipient.
- --
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: Mon, 13 May 2002 11:30:27 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

Alexander Svensson wrote:

>
>About the 50 percent rule which you call "arbitrarily complex":
>I cannot understand what you mean by that. If neither motion
>is approved by a majority of the voters, you will surely
>not consider them approved by the GA? Every motion obviously
>needs more Yes than No votes and abstentions!
>
I find it inteesting that this 50% rule is suddenly being invoked to 
establish legitimacy in a GA vote... why has this not been the case to 
date with respect to GA votes?

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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: Mon, 13 May 2002 17:44:06 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

*PLEASE* read this before debating procedural questions!

There seems to be confusion about the proposed vote on motions.

What is meant by "50 percent"?
  There are voters which vote YES, voters which vote NO
  and voters which ABSTAIN.
  A motion is only carried when there are MORE people
  voting YES than otherwise -- this means 50 percent
  of the people taking part in a particular vote
  must vote YES or else that particular motion will
  have failed.

What is meant by "50 percent of the voters"?
  50 percent of the people taking part in the vote. This
  is not a quorum with regard to the voting registry.

Why doesn't each motion stand on its own?
  Well, it does! You can vote YES or NO on motion X and
  YES or NO on motion Y or you can abstain.

Why is this such a "non-process"?
  Because we have no detailed rules for all these cases,
  only precedences and agreement among GA members.

Is there no consensus requirement, i.e. more than 50%?
  As I read the bylaws, there is no requirement for a
  minimum percentage for GA votes; please correct me
  if you read it otherweise.

What if only three people participate and two vote for
Motion X?
  (a) There is a majority for Motion X. (b) The GA
  looks silly.

Best,
/// Alexander

- --
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: Mon, 13 May 2002 11:56:15 -0400
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Intentional & Widespread Whois Errors - Some Specific Examples

In the context of this week's Congressional hearings on the accuracy of
Whois data [1], I thought GA members might be interested in some specific
examples of the problems at issue here.

With that motivation, I've prepared a listing of 988 domains registered by a
group calling themselves "NicGod Productions" and "Domains For Sale."
They're like ordinary domain warehousers in that they seem to seek to sell
their domains for a profit, and they're like Tina's Webcam [2] in that they
tend to register domains allowed to lapse by prior registrants.  But they're
quite different in that they don't register the domains in their own name;
instead, they use a mixture of names and organizations including, for some
425 names, "Alan Ginsberg" (a deceased American poet).  They also don't
register the domains using their own street address; instead, they use a
variety of addresses from as many as nine different countries, and they seem
to use voicemail and fax-forwarding services to receive requests to purchase
domains in their inventory.

I'm certainly not the first to notice NicGod's activities; they've been
UDRP'ed at least 27 times [3], and the OECD wrote up a jarring report of
their experience with these folks [4].  But my recent work goes a notch
further in that I've documented what I believe to be a substantial portion
of NicGod's inventory -- including, for example, schools
(armenianschools.com, californiastateuniversity.com), government sites
(flintpolice.org, winthrop-police.com), and medical information
(doctorjohn.com).  For each domain, I've extracted data from archive.org,
Alexa, Google, and Yahoo to speak to the domains' prior contents & uses as
well as their popularity.

My results are available at:
  <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/invalid-whois/?d>

Regards,

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/edelman

[1] Thursday, 9:30am, <http://www.house.gov/judiciary/schedule.htm>
[2] <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/renewals/>
[3] <http://www.udrplaw.net/DomainForSaleDecisions.htm>
[4] <http://www.oecd.org/pdf/M00027000/M00027316.pdf>

- --
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: Mon, 13 May 2002 09:01:30 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

Let us get some stuff down about procedure.

Corruption occurs, that is just life.
Good procedure holds back the above fact.
The Battle of Hastings probably launched the most current well working
legal system.
We have not perfected it and we still must work at it constantly both as
drafters and as critics.

We have no process in the GA for this kind of vote.
TR killed a movement to enact the great best practices.

However phrased there will be overwhelming support for a "rebid".
People did not join up to support the current administration of ICANN, no
way!
Any dilution of that major support for "rebid" will be known for what it
is - TR fraud.

AS you are doing a great job of not doing your job here.  You have not
drafted a document that is supported by a large group but have purposely
obfuscated the obvious will of your constituents in favor of your BoD
masters. (buddy I have seen enough around here to tell you that you will
never get what you think you will get through ICANN because you do not
belong with "those kind of people")

The procedure should be; lets have a damned vote!

And the vote should be simple and carry an undeniable message

I want a rebid for the ICANN contract with the US DoC -(yes or no)

All the rest of these politics are just that and it is a bunch of crap.

Sincerely,
Eric

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Ted,
>
> At 13.05.2002 09:37, t byfield wrote:
> >thomas, this is a really strange -- and totally unnecessary -- method
> >to announce so suddenly. what *should* be a yes/no/abstain VOTE ON a
> >resolution is, by these rules, transformed into a COMPETITION BETWEEN
> >resolutions. the 'suddenness' of this method is a by-product of the
> >lack of structure that has characterized this non-process so far. and
> >i won't even get into the 50% rule, which strikes me as an effort to
> >determine the outcome by adopting an arbitrarily complex method.
>
> Actually, if you have read the GA list, you will have noticed
> that this has already been debated.
> Thomas offered two alternatives: Preferential voting (as used
> for person elections, which probably isn't as suitable for
> such issue votes) and "one vote per member plus 50% rule".
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00712.html
>
> Jonathan Weinberg proposed a different approach.
> >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.
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00736.html
>
> To which James Love replied:
> >I had not studied the specifics of the proceedure closely, and the
> >system set out by Jonathan Weinberg makes the most sense.
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00748.html
>
> About the 50 percent rule which you call "arbitrarily complex":
> I cannot understand what you mean by that. If neither motion
> is approved by a majority of the voters, you will surely
> not consider them approved by the GA? Every motion obviously
> needs more Yes than No votes and abstentions!
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 13 May 2002 09:09:01 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

I 100% disagree with WXW on his challenge.

I 100% agree with WXW on his insistence on some responsibility by the
chair.

Scope of the GAs' policy suggestions is critical.  Mission creep is
horrible and wrong.

I do not believe this vote is mission creep.  But TR running and putting
his head in the sand or somewhere else is deplorable.

Eric

William X Walsh wrote:

> Thomas,
>
> I and others on this list are still waiting for your response to my
> point on procedure which challenges whether this motion is outside the
> scope of the GA or not.
>
> You have no only failed to rule on the challenge, but you have failed
> to even acknowledge the legitimate challenge to the topicality of this
> motion.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> --
> Save Internet Radio!
> CARP will kill Webcasting!
> http://www.saveinternetradio.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

- --
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: Mon, 13 May 2002 11:02:08 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

I support the motion by James Love. I do not support the
one by Alexaner
- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 4:20 AM
Subject: [ga] Procedure.

> 1. There will be a formal vote.
> 
> 2. The options available for vote will include any resolutions  
> supported by no less than 10 individuals (including the proponent),  
> which are presented for inclusion with the ballot.  It's up to the  
> various proponents to come up with a final version of the text at  
> hand.  Please post any such resolutions (including supporters) until 
> 24:00 Pacific Time.  (This is an extension of the original deadline; 
> this extension was, in slightly more vague form, announced by  
> Alexander on Friday.) 
> 
> I'd suggest that you start the subject line for any such posting  
> with "RESOLUTION." I'd also suggest that you _only_ use this prefix  
> for final resolution texts which are supposed to go onto the ballot.
> 
> NOTE: The resolution proposed by Alexander (although I actually do  
> support it) will not be put onto the ballot unless it gets the  
> necessary support.
> 
> PLEASE SEND YOUR NOTE OF SUPPORT TO ALEX IF YOU WANT THIS TO BE  
> INCLUDED WITH THE BALLOT!
> 
> 3. To evaluate the vote, we'll mostly follow Jonathan Weinberg's  
> earlier suggestion: You'll be able to vote on each resolution.  The 
> resolution which gets most "yes" votes will be considered to have 
> been accepted, under the additional condition that more than 50% of 
> voters accepted it.
> 
> 4. In the case of a tie (i.e., n > 1 motions being accepted with the 
> same number of votes), we'll perform a demonstration of applied 
> cryptography, and I'll securely toss an n-sided coin, with James 
> Love as the other player.  (Jamie: You do have PGP, don't you?)
> 
> -- 
> 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
> 
> 

- --
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: Mon, 13 May 2002 12:10:34 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] WHOIS Hearings

Oversight hearing on “The Accuracy and Integrity of the WHOIS DATABASE.”
~Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property

THURSDAY, MAY 16, 2002, 9:30 a.m. in 2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Live Audio will be available during date and time of hearing only. 
http://www.house.gov/judiciary/schedule.htm
- --
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: Mon, 13 May 2002 12:13:51 -0400
From: t byfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

[email-masked] (Mon 05/13/02 at 04:55 PM +0200):

> >i won't even get into the 50% rule, which strikes me as an effort to
> >determine the outcome by adopting an arbitrarily complex method.
> 
> Actually, if you have read the GA list, you will have noticed
> that this has already been debated.

i did, but in keeping with my remarks about lack of explicit
structure in the process, it was far from clear to me that it
had been settled.

> >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. 
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00736.html

yeah, but go back and read jon's whole message, as opposed to 
this snippet and you will see VERY clearly why i didn't inter-
pret his suggestion as thomas has.

> To which James Love replied:
> >I had not studied the specifics of the proceedure closely, and the 
> >system set out by Jonathan Weinberg makes the most sense.
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00748.html
> 
> About the 50 percent rule which you call "arbitrarily complex":
> I cannot understand what you mean by that. If neither motion
> is approved by a majority of the voters, you will surely
> not consider them approved by the GA? Every motion obviously
> needs more Yes than No votes and abstentions!

well, someone else (bill?) asked: 50% of the GA or 50% of those
voting?

cheers,
t
- --
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: Mon, 13 May 2002 09:21:14 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

>
>
> Alexander Svensson wrote:
>
>>
>> About the 50 percent rule which you call "arbitrarily complex":
>> I cannot understand what you mean by that. If neither motion
>> is approved by a majority of the voters, you will surely
>> not consider them approved by the GA? Every motion obviously
>> needs more Yes than No votes and abstentions!
>>
> I find it inteesting that this 50% rule is suddenly being invoked to 
> establish legitimacy in a GA vote... why has this not been the case to 
> date with respect to GA votes? 

Because, as I've repeatedly pointed out, until you get to the DNSO 
Secretariat level, the GA has never had a set procedure for voting on 
anything.  With the help of Vittorio Bertola and other good folks, 
including yourself, Joop, etc., as I recall, icannatlarge.com was able 
to carry out a clean, clear, definitive vote for the members of its 
Panel (of which you became a member) with a minimum of confusion. The GA 
has never been able to do anything like that, because it would rather 
play politics.
Right up to some arbitrarily selected deadline people are piling in with 
more "motions" or "RESOLUTIONS" or whatever; new, ad hoc procedures are 
announced (and to which substantial opposition comes to be expressed), 
and while there was some amount of debate and discussion, most of it 
consisted of expositions of political positions rather than precisely 
defined and targeted comment on specific motions. A vote will now be 
taken, but without there having been the kind of discussions on which 
knowledgeable and meaningful votes could be cast.

However, even out of that, there will come some kind of indication of 
where all us folks want to go, in the same manner as I hope will soon be 
carried out in icannatlarge.com (see my last post there), namely, does 
everyone want to continue riding on the ICANN bus, or is it time to 
start building anew.

Bill Lovell

>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
>
> -- 
> 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: Mon, 13 May 2002 09:38:26 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

At 09:37 AM 13/05/02 -0400, t byfield wrote:

>there should be a ballot with a single resolution on with
>yes, no, and abstain options, and the results should be
>evaluated on a purely comparative basis: did more people
>support or oppose? in the event of a tie, the result
>should be interpreted as a no.

Given Alexander's recent clarifications, if voters can
vote for more than one option then you could wind up
with a situation whereby Option A receives, say, a 90%
yes vote, Option B receives, say, a 91% yes vote.
Therefore a 90% yes vote is not considered consensus.

Further, a yes vote of 67% for Option A and 66% for
option B could occur even if they are incompatible,
or a yes vote of 55% for Option A and 54% for Option
B could occur even though they are diametrically
opposed, either because some misunderstand or misread
the motion, or because the voting procedure is poorly
constructed or understood (as I think is happening in
this case), or because a small minority want to game
the system for whatever reason.

Add an option #3 (and #4...) and increase the problems.

In all these cases the resolution would not be taken
seriously or given any credible weight, nor should it.
That is, the GA looks silly.

There was a suggestion for a motion from Jamie Love.
It needed 10 supporters and got them. The motion is
therefore open to debate (and amendment through a
Motion to amend, which should presumably under these
arbitrary rules also require 10 supporters). Assuming
no amendment, or a supported amendment, then it goes
to a formal vote at a time based either on the Chair's
ruling that further debate won't add to the process,
or on an arbitrary deadline (set for whatever reason).

As James Love's motion received 10 supporters it
should go to a vote. If it fails, then another Motion
is in order. If it passes it stands unless someone
comes up with a subsequent incompatible motion, in
which case the previous Motion comes up for
reconsideration. In Robert's Rules of Order, for
example, a Reconsideration Motion requires a 2/3
affirmative vote, otherwise votes would easily
be overturned by one or two voters.

Just because this is an online voting process
doesn't mean such voting should be done in
parallel, rather than serial, fashion.

I very strongly support t byfield's points. -g

- --
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: Mon, 13 May 2002 12:30:20 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

Alexander Svensson wrote:

>*PLEASE* read this before debating procedural questions!
>
>There seems to be confusion about the proposed vote on motions.
>
>What is meant by "50 percent"?
>  There are voters which vote YES, voters which vote NO
>  and voters which ABSTAIN.
>  A motion is only carried when there are MORE people
>  voting YES than otherwise -- this means 50 percent
>  of the people taking part in a particular vote
>  must vote YES or else that particular motion will
>  have failed.
>
>What is meant by "50 percent of the voters"?
>  50 percent of the people taking part in the vote. This
>  is not a quorum with regard to the voting registry.
>
<snip>

>
>
>Is there no consensus requirement, i.e. more than 50%?
>  As I read the bylaws, there is no requirement for a
>  minimum percentage for GA votes; please correct me
>  if you read it otherweise.
>

Thanks for clearing this up.  I was under the impression that TR was 
invoking some kind of  voting registry quorum requirement.  As long as 
the rule is 50%+ of the _participating_ voters (and not the entire 
voting registry) then there is no problem.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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 #1188
*************************