Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1190
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, May 14 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1190

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

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 07:36:42 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New registrations

>+     Becky  Burr  USA  Washington, DC

Fascinating.  I hope Ms Burr expresses an opinion on the re-delegation
issue :-)

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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 13:38:40 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

At 07:25 PM 13/05/02 +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:

>Frankly, each vote is costly. I takes several hours
>of work on several days, mostly work by the DNSO
>Secretariat, but also unpaid volunteer work by the
>election watchdogs. I recommend reading Elisabeth
>Porteneuve's remarks at
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00249.html

I was already aware of that, thanks, and generally
took it into account when making my points, which
I still stand by. I am not convinced by an argument
that the provision of democracy should equate
in any way with its cost.

ICANN spent $500,000 on the ALSC, perhaps some of
that (particularily given the outcome) could have
been better spent on actual democratic processes.
If it is a matter of more funds, why aren't they
being solicited? If it is a matter of more
volunteers, why not ask? I'm willing to volunteer.

Properly, I think, your motion should have been an
amendment to Jamie Love's motion. If it clearly had
at least the support of the first motion, and/or at
least some of the supporters of the first motion also
supported the amendment, then the Chair could rule
that the amended motion would go to a vote (or ask
for a straw poll for a day or two which of the two
motions should go forward). If the amendment passed,
move on to something else. If the amendment failed,
go back to the main motion, unless the result of
the first vote clearly showed that the main motion
would also be a waste of time (and other resources).
I doubt that this would lead to a great increase in
the number of votes, and if it did, deal with it
then, by limiting votes and/or by increasing
resources.

In the present example, those opposing the first
motion seem to have not taken into account that
even an overwhelming yes vote of perhaps 10% of
the electorate would impress no-one, or that a
60% yes vote of 50% of the electorate could
hardly be termed consensus. Rather than trust
in the wisdom of the electorate, we have seen
the Chair and Alt Chair (with neither having
any claim to impartiality) engage in a number
of arbitrary actions and rulings on how this
vote will be conducted.

Therefore an overwhelming yes vote of perhaps
10% of the electorate, or a 60% yes vote of
50% of the electorate will be given more weight
by some because the process was suspect. I
fail to see much wisdom in this. Indeed, it
looks to me like the same gaming of the system
that goes on elsewhere in ICANN.

I said on ICANNWatch over a week ago that I
didn't support this rebid idea. Better the
devil you know... And if Alexander's motion
stood on its own, either because it was considered
an amendment or because the first vote failed, I
would support it. But given the events of the past
week, perhaps it would be better to go with at
least an opportunity for a new structure and
individuals. The devil we know seems to have
thoroughly possessed the current ICANN from
top to bottom.

>In addition, not grouping motions on the same issue
>in one vote seems to have exactly the same risks of
>cyclical majorities than grouping them...

As I've already stated, that is why Robert's Rules
of Order, for example, requires a 2/3 vote to
reconsider a vote previously passed by 50% plus 1.
As most votes pass by greater than 51%, that requires
a small minority to convince a super-majority to
change their minds (and votes), which rarely happens.
There is much wisdom in Robert's Rules of Order.

>With that, I have reached my posting limit for today,
>so I'll stay silent.

I'm getting close myself. -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 23:17:28 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

On 2002-05-13 13:38:40 -0700, Gary Osbourne wrote:

>In the present example, those opposing the first motion seem to 
>have not taken into account that even an overwhelming yes vote of 
>perhaps 10% of the electorate would impress no-one, or that a 60% 
>yes vote of 50% of the electorate could hardly be termed 
>consensus. Rather than trust in the wisdom of the electorate, we 
>have seen the Chair and Alt Chair (with neither having any claim 
>to impartiality) engage in a number of arbitrary actions and 
>rulings on how this vote will be conducted.

>Therefore an overwhelming yes vote of perhaps 10% of the 
>electorate, or a 60% yes vote of 50% of the electorate will be 
>given more weight by some because the process was suspect. I fail 
>to see much wisdom in this. Indeed, it looks to me like the same 
>gaming of the system that goes on elsewhere in ICANN.

I'm still trying to get your point, and I'd like to ask you to make 
it more clearly.  

Just in case it helps, the ballot as I imagined it when I wrote my  
message in the morning would (roughly) look like this:

	[ ] motion 1
	[ ] motion 2

	[ ] abstain

The options you have: Either abstain, or give yes/no votes to _both_ 
motions.  In this situation, there are basically three things which 
can happen:

 - One motion wins (> 50% yes), and the other one loses (< 50% yes).  
   In this case, there is no doubt that the motion with > 50 % yes  
   should win.

 - Both motions get more than 50% yes.  In this case, there's 
   obviously more consensus on the one with more votes, so that 
   should be the winner.
   
 - Both motions get less than 50% yes.  In this case, there's 
   obviously no consensus at all, so no motion would be accepted.

I admit that this is a rather "creative" application of the GA's  
voting rules.

As far as I see it, a strict application of these rules would 
mandate that the question on the ballot is something like this:

	Please select one of the following options:
	
	[ ] The GA should adopt the "re-bid" resolution
	[ ] The GA should adopt the "basic principles" resolution
	[ ] The GA should adopt none of the above resolutions.

You'd make precisely one "x" (or abstain).  Obviously, only one of  
the options could get more than 50% of all the votes.  In that  
case, that option would be adopted.  If none of the options gets  
more than 50%, there would be no consensus on the GA, that would be  
documented, and we could at least try to return to more important  
things.

(Then again, taking this vote at all most likely implies that we are 
already bending some rather important rules, as William has  
argued.)

I'm still waiting for comments on this; I'd suggest that these  
comments should come rather quickly, since the time window we have  
for starting an election is limited to this week due to practical  
constraints at the secretariat, as I already pointed out more than a 
week ago.

- -- 
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

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

Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 23:53:53 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

- --=======1646739B=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-6DAC6D6A; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Who did say:
1) that we want a resolution?
2) that we want a single resolution?
We just wanted to have a chair... too bad.
jfc

On 20:13 13/05/02, Thomas Roessler said:

>On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 12:52:26PM -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>
>>Re: "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."
>
>>Just to be clear... are you exactly following the "VOTING RULES FOR THE 
>>DNSO GA" published to 
>>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-rules.html or, are you 
>>creating a "new rule"?
>
>The mode of operation I have proposed is asking two questions (to speak in 
>terms of the rules):
>
>         1. Should the GA adopt resolution A?
>         2. Should the GA adopt resolution B?
>
>Since the objective of this election is to have one resolution in the end, 
>I have added the rule that the resolution which receives most "yes" votes 
>is the one we consider the ultimate outcome of the vote.
>
>If you folks want to go without this addition, the question would have to 
>be: "Which resolution do you want to have?" The three mutually exclusive 
>answers would be: James' resolution, Alexander's resolution, no resolution 
>at all.
>
>Comments?
>--
>Thomas Roessler                      <[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
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming 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

- --=======1646739B=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-6DAC6D6A
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

- --=======1646739B=======--

- --
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 17:52:42 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] motion support

Jefsey and all assembly members,

  Thank you Jefsey for your voicing you position.  As such,
this puts the Tally for Jamie's Rebid Motion at 19 in favor for
a ballot to vote on it, and 8 against.

jefsey wrote:

> For the records.
> I formally support the motion of James Love since no debate occured.
> I would support the motion of Alexander should it clearly state a date
> after which no action by the BoD will lead to the James Love position.
>
> This being said I do regret the attitude of the Chair who deliberately
> killed this GA. We elected him to conduct the GA debate not to impeach it.
> We should at the time of the vote have put together a coherent strategy
> using the inputs of James, Alexander, Roberto, and several others and at
> least have addressed my questions. This vote is purportedly made in
> disorder with the clearly annouced intent to lock the GA into discussing
> only the consequences of decisions taken by others and not these decisions
> themselves. I disapprove that euthanasia of the GA which is very surprising
> from our Chair. I only hope that the new voters will help with a new blood.
>
> jfc
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    Part 1.2   Type: Plain Text (text/plain)

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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 18:12:03 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

Sotiris and all assembly members,

  I have the same question that Sotiris does here!  What's up
with this nonsense Alex?  Hummmm?

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?
>
> 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

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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 18:26:45 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

t Byfield and all assembly members,

  I believe that ALexander means 50% of those actually voting
not 50% of all the registered voters...  But perhaps
Alex would clarify that.  ALexander?  I also have a problem
with such an announcement at such a late stage just before
such a ballot is to be issued on such a question, motion, or
resolution.

t byfield wrote:

> [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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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 18:29:36 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Text of Motion # 1..... plus info on title

Jamie and all assembly members,

  I agree and support this title for Jamie's motion...

James Love wrote:

> The final text of motion # 1 is the one that Joanna Lane posted earlier,
> which is below.  Now it needs a title.  I recommend:
>
> "Request that US DoC hold open competition for services now offered by
> ICANN"
>
> <-----text Joanna Lane posted----------------->
> ---------------------
> WHEREAS the Internet Corporation for Assigned names and Numbers (ICANN) has
> dramatically changed the initial terms of reference for ICANN, and is
> proposing even further changes.
>
> WHEREAS these proposed changes have met extensive opposition in the Internet
> community and go even further from the original terms of reference.
>
> WHEREAS a new open competition would allow the U.S. Department of Commerce
> (the DoC) to consider both the ICANN Board proposal for restructuring, and
> alternatives offered by others for managing key Internet resources, while
> providing for a public record of the process for enhanced visibility.
>
> WHEREAS the General Assembly of ICANN's Domain name Supporting Organization
> (the DNSO) also reminds the DoC, that in the Green and the White Paper, the
> Government of the United States made it clear that it intends to withdraw
> from management of the Domain name System (the DNS).
>
> It is hereby RESOLVED that:-
>
> The General Assembly of the Domain name Supporting Organization of Internet
> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) asks the US Department of
> Commerce to have an open competition for the services now provided by ICANN,
> provided that the new competition would address the need to develop an
> international framework for DNS management. An open competition should aim
> to achieve comprehensive privatization and internationalization of DNS
> services, consistent with the need for stability, but also innovation,
> competition and freedom.
>
> --------------------------------
> 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

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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 19:33:34 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Procedure.

Thomas,
I am deeply concerned that this procedure is being unilaterally decided by a
Chair who is not at all neutral on the issues being debated. He is very
hostile towards the first Motion, and if that isn't bad enough, the
Alternate Chair is the Proponent of what is being set down as a competing
Motion.  This state of affairs is not at all satisfactory, the results will
not stand up to scrutiny later, it goes directly against every principal of
Best Practices.

I make further comments below.

> Just in case it helps, the ballot as I imagined it when I wrote my
> message in the morning would (roughly) look like this:
>
> 	[ ] motion 1
> 	[ ] motion 2
>
> 	[ ] abstain
>
> The options you have: Either abstain, or give yes/no votes to _both_
> motions.  In this situation, there are basically three things which
> can happen:

This is not an appropriate format. These are not conflicting Motions whereby
one has to chose one or the other, and if they were, then you should not be
sending them for a vote, rather you should facilitate further discussion to
eliminate one or other Motion. That would more than likely involve another
informal Poll to determine which has greater consensus. As it is, if you
insist on proceeding with a formal ballot this week, then you must allow the
membership to vote on each Motion separately, which means an option for,
against, and abstain on each Motion.

> I admit that this is a rather "creative" application of the GA's
> voting rules.

Which would make the whole exercise a complete waste of time since the
results would not stand up to scrutiny for reasons of your creative
application of the rules.

> As far as I see it, a strict application of these rules would
> mandate that the question on the ballot is something like this:
>
> 	Please select one of the following options:
>
> 	[ ] The GA should adopt the "re-bid" resolution
> 	[ ] The GA should adopt the "basic principles" resolution
> 	[ ] The GA should adopt none of the above resolutions.

Excuse me? Please point me to the part of the rules that says members cannot
explicitly state their preference for each motion presented to them as a
separate decision. I may agree with both of these Motions, or disagree with
both, or I may agree with one, but abstain on another. You are denying my
right to make those choices.

> (Then again, taking this vote at all most likely implies that we are
> already bending some rather important rules, as William has
> argued.)

A wholly inappropriate, almost juvenile, response to the point of order
question in my view. If, the Chair is not satisfied that a vote is in order,
then he/she should stop proceedings forthwith until it is. If, on the other
hand, he/she allows it to proceed, then it should be done willingly and in
good faith. Making insinuations that the procedure may be invalidated
later - as Thomas is now doing, is out of order for a Chair.

> I'm still waiting for comments on this; I'd suggest that these
> comments should come rather quickly, since the time window we have
> for starting an election is limited to this week due to practical
> constraints at the secretariat, as I already pointed out more than a
> week ago.

What practical constraints? Since when did the General Assembly have to
conduct its business to fit in with the Secretariat's social life (or
whatever the reason is for insisting its done this week)? Do we know what
pressing issue(s) prevents the Assembly from conducting its business as it
sees fit?

Regards,
Joanna
>
> --
> 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 17:47:16 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

At 11:17 PM 13/05/02 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:

 > I'm still trying to get your point, and I'd like to ask
 > you to make it more clearly.

I'll try.

 > Just in case it helps, the ballot as I imagined it when I
 > wrote my message in the morning would (roughly) look like this:
 >
 >	[ ] motion 1
 >	[ ] motion 2
 >
 >	[ ] abstain
 >
 > The options you have: Either abstain, or give yes/no votes to
 > _both_ motions.

So then one cannot abstain on one and vote yes
or no to another? I don't think this is a crucial
point either way. For me at least I don't abstain
on votes unless I have, for example, a conflict
of interest. But this strikes me as a decent
example of what can happen when one more or less
makes up the rules whilst one goes along. Let us
say that some voter wishes to vote yea or nay on
one and abstain on the other. Under this method,
they can't. Add an option three and the problem
multiplies. I don't see why an abstain for each
wouldn't be an improvement, though as I say I don't
consider this a crucial point, just an example
of the law of unintended consequences.

 > In this situation, there are basically three things which can happen:
 >
 > One motion wins (> 50% yes), and the other one loses (< 50% yes).
 > In this case, there is no doubt that the motion with > 50 % yes
 >  should win.

Agreed. But the mere presence of both options
can change the result that would have been
received if only one option had appeared on
the ballot. That is why I suggest that a
subsequent motion should either modify the
previous with only one going forward, or be
a separate motion. In the real world if there
is a particular order of business before an
assembly there aren't dueling motions. If the
second motion is about a substantively different
matter then by all means add it to the same
ballot (with a separate opportunity to abstain)
if it saves time and resources. But by taking
one motion on the floor and adding another that
is in essence an amendment of the first, and then
perhaps a third, et cetera, seems to me a decent
way to thwart the will of the majority. Any mover
(and ten supporters) can water down the ballot.
BTW, I think 10 supporters out of 500+ members
is quite a low threshold.

Like it or not, there is and should be a first
mover advantage in deliberative assemblies. It
focuses members of the assembly to come up with
useful motions in the shortest time. If instead
one can sit back and wait for others and then
gather 10 supporters and get on the ballot, well,
I hope I'm not the only one who can see how this
can be used to thwart a motion that otherwise
might have been accepted.

 > Both motions get more than 50% yes.
 > In this case, there's   obviously more
 > consensus on the one with more votes,
 > so that   should be the winner.

As I say, it isn't impossible to imagine that
both motions would receive broad consensus,
yet only one could win. That is one reason
why dueling motions is not a Good Thing.

 > Both motions get less than 50% yes.  In
 > this case, there's   obviously no consensus
 > at all, so no motion would be accepted.

Agreed. Whereas if there had been a single
option it isn't impossible to imagine that
it might have received 50%+. Another good
reason not to have dueling motions.

Yet another reason not to have dueling motions
is because the best right answer, or the
least wrong answer, may be a combination
of parts of one, parts of another. The
more complex the motion(s), the more chance
that the result will not be optimal. Better
to work out as much as possible through
amendments methinks.

 > I admit that this is a rather "creative"
 > application of the GA's voting rules.

And I submit this might not be the best
time to be creative. Roberts Rules of
Order, for example (there are others),
is very much like Boolean logic. Handled
properly one can build great things.

This probably isn't the best time to
introduce Robert's Rules either, :) but
using some aspects and not others will
often lead to illegal states.

 > As far as I see it, a strict application of these rules
 > would mandate that the question on the ballot is something
 > like this:
 >
 >	Please select one of the following options:
 >	
 >	[ ] The GA should adopt the "re-bid" resolution
 >	[ ] The GA should adopt the "basic principles" resolution
 >	[ ] The GA should adopt none of the above resolutions.

This begs the question(s) that I've already raised
about why there is more than one Option, but OK...

 > You'd make precisely one "x" (or abstain).  Obviously, only one of
 > the options could get more than 50% of all the votes.  In that
 > case, that option would be adopted.  If none of the options gets
 > more than 50%, there would be no consensus on the GA, that would be
 > documented, and we could at least try to return to more important
 > things.

This might work reasonably well with two options,
as voting for one is much like voting against
another, therefore this equates most closely with
a single option with a yes/no (though as I say,
with complex motions one could lose the best of
both). But it doesn't scale, add a third option
and two minorities averaging 26% each will
ensure the defeat of a third option, add a
fourth and that drops to 17%, et cetera...
Therefore options with no chance of success
can kill off an option that had some chance
of success.

 > (Then again, taking this vote at all most likely
 > implies that we are already bending some rather
 > important rules, as William has argued.)

I think there is some merit to William's argument.
I won't try to bend my head around whether there
is sufficient merit as, thankfully for all, I'm
not the Chair. :)

 > I'm still waiting for comments on this; I'd suggest
 > that these comments should come rather quickly,
 > since the time window we have for starting an
 > election is limited to this week due to practical
 > constraints at the secretariat, as I already
 > pointed out more than a week ago.

Respectfully, some of the procedure has just been
posted today. I guess that's the price we pay for
just in time (if that) processes, which I know is
not a situation of the Chair's making. But as they
say, it's not what one inherits that matters, it's
what one does with it. -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 18:10:48 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

- --------------080301080403050409030803
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Alexander Svensson wrote:

>At 13.05.2002 09:21, you wrote:
>
>>Right up to some arbitrarily selected deadline 
>>
>
>The deadline wasn't selected arbitrarily -- we depend on
>the availability of the DNSO Secretariat. For this reason,
>the vote has to start between May 13 and 17. 
>
So what happens after May 17?  The DNSO Secretariat disappears into that 
Great White
Cloud in the Sky?  DNSO disappears (we should only hope so!). What's 
wrong with
June 13? October 3rd?  Etc.? Better to have a vote delayed than a vote 
that will be
meaningless -- rendered so in part, by the way, by last minute entries 
such as yours that
in fact did NOT get enough exposure to be discussed significantly, and 
such a flurry of
"amendments" that will present no little difficulty to track, if anyone 
bothers to do so. What
you're saying is that the date range was selected arbitrarily by the 
DNSO and those inclined
to follow its dictates.

Bad habit, methinks.  :-)

>
>
>Best regards,
>/// Alexander
>
>

- --------------080301080403050409030803
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
Alexander Svensson wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:[email-masked]">
  <pre wrap="">At 13.05.2002 09:21, you wrote:<br></pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">Right up to some arbitrarily selected deadline <br></pre>
    </blockquote>
    <pre wrap=""><!----><br>The deadline wasn't selected arbitrarily -- we depend on<br>the availability of the DNSO Secretariat. For this reason,<br>the vote has to start between May 13 and 17. </pre>
    </blockquote>
So what happens after May 17? &nbsp;The DNSO Secretariat disappears into that
Great White<br>
Cloud in the Sky? &nbsp;DNSO disappears (we should only hope so!). What's wrong
with <br>
June 13? October 3rd? &nbsp;Etc.? Better to have a vote delayed than a vote that
will be<br>
meaningless -- rendered so in part, by the way, by last minute entries such
as yours that<br>
in fact did NOT get enough exposure to be discussed significantly, and such
a flurry of<br>
"amendments" that will present no little difficulty to track, if anyone bothers
to do so. What <br>
you're saying is that the date range was selected arbitrarily by the DNSO
and those inclined <br>
to follow its dictates.<br>
    <br>
Bad habit, methinks. &nbsp;:-)<br>
    <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:[email-masked]">
      <pre wrap=""><br><br>Best regards,<br>/// Alexander<br><br><br></pre>
      </blockquote>
      <br>
      </body>
      </html>

- --------------080301080403050409030803--

- --
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 21:19:46 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Procedure - Time Line progress report

PROGRESS REPORT on proceedings of the GA with reference to the TIME LINE
posted on May 3rd, 2002 at
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00700.html. The Time Line was
prepared with reference to the Best Practices Time Line Guide at
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html

ACTION:
General Discussion and investigation of issues
duration:7 days
start:Thurs May 2nd
end:Thurs May 9th
PROCEDURE COMPLETED

Poll
duration:3 days
start: Fri May 3rd
end: Sun May 5th
PROCEDURE COMPLETED

Recognition of Motion(s)
Fri May 10th
PROCEDURE COMPLETED, TWO MOTIONS GO FORWARD:
#1 - Working Title: Rebid on ICANN contract
Proponent: James Love
#2 - Working Title - Basic principles
Proponent: Alexander Svennsson

Debate on Motions #1 and #2
duration:7 days
start:Fri May 10th
end:Fri May 17th
IN PROGRESS

Poll(s) on amendments,
and/ or alternative motions
duration: 3 days
(optional at any time during Debate)

Recognition of Voting Procedure
duration:1 day
Sat May 18th

Secretariat prepares Ballot (s)
duration: 1 day
Sun May 19th

Vote of the whole Assembly
duration:7 days
start:Mon May 20th
end:Mon May 27th

Final Report(Vote results and supporting documentation)
duration:2 days
start:Tues May 28th
end:Wed May 29th

Submit Final Report to ICANN Board
And other interested parties.
Thurs May 30th
____________________________________________

- --
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 #1190
*************************