Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #613
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, July 14 2001           Volume 01 : Number 613

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

Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 19:33:34 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  Note from the Secretariat  

The DNSO Secretariat Search Committee reports:  
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/doc00013.doc 

PROGRESS:

1.  The RFP for providers of DNSO Secretariat services (currently provided by 
Elisabeth/AFNIC) has now closed.  
2.  Eight responses have been received and are currently being evaluated by 
Ian Peter and Associates.
3.  The evaluation and recommendations of Ian Peter and Associates will be 
forwarded to members of the Search Committee early next week (no later than 
Tue, 2 Jul).
4.  The Search Committee is scheduled to meet on Thu next week (5 Jul) to 
consider the report of Ian Peter and Associates and determine its 
recommendation(s) for appointment.
5.  The recommendation of the Search Committee will be submitted to the NC 
Budget Committee, which, in its turn, will submit a recommendation for 
appointment to the NC.
6.  The appointee will be offered a consultancy contract and it is expected 
that a standard form contract will be used (with deliverables included in the 
contract schedule).  ICANN, acting on behalf of the NC, will be the contract 
signatory.

CONTRACT

The Search Committee has sought ICANN guidance and assistance on the most 
appropriate contractual arrangements and a copy of the standards consultancy 
contract used by ICANN.  However, no response from ICANN has so far been 
received and follow up on this issue is required.

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

More fact-finding... Perhaps the Search Committee can advise how soon we can 
expect to have a new Secretariat contract in place, and perhaps they can 
advise whether the new contract contains sufficient funds to allow the 
General Assembly to conduct necessary voting as required.

[Please note:  The Committee's RFP may be found at 
http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/2001.RFP-DNSO.html ]

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 6:31 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Note from the DNSO Secretariat

Dear members, this note has just been sent by our DNSO Secretariat... your 
comments would be appreciated.

GA Chair and Alternate,

I am affraid that the Secretariat will have serious difficulties
to follow the current rythme of votes requested by the GA.

On 25 July ends the election to the Udrp TF. The GA just ended
the election to the Review TF (12 July). Now the highest priority
for the Secretariat is the election of ICANN Board Director
- - it will last more than 6 weeks.

Each vote is several hours of work of preparation, then of supervision
and results calculation, it must be planified in advance and coordinated.
The elections are especially resources consuming.

I perfectly understand that the GA may have its own needs -
the Secretariat would be delighted to provide voting services,
but human resources are limited, alas.

Additionaly we are in the middle of summer vacation now.

DNSO Secretariat
- --
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: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 19:38:23 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga]  MOTION AMENDMENT

I agree with Joanna and this was also my concern in the first place.  To move the GA
forward, I felt compelled to agree with Patrick's motion.  My position is that
*we'll cross that bridge when we get to it*, unless you want to spend three weeks
now debating the subject.

I believe that a better topic to address would be granting certain GA
representatives voting power to drive the GA process forward.  However, I've already
tried to present this concept to the GA and maybe it was not understood.  The
concept I presented appears alive here anyway with only certain GA representatives
running the show.  So, who has time to waste here?  Let's designate 9 GA
representatives and empower them with voting power for 90 days that represents the
full GA.  If the full GA does not like certain representative positions or actions
upon 90 days, those certain representatives will be replaced with others who better
represent the GA.

The GA has the problems it has because it is not properly organized and because of
this it cannot move significant agenda forward through any valid consensus process.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

Joanna Lane wrote:

> Hang on! I really do have concerns about:-
>
> 1.  Members sending a Motion on a new rule to a ballot when there has been
> no discussion whatsoever on how the new rule could be implemented. Shouldn't
> that be debated before the vote is taken?
>
> 2. Members would be adopting a new RULE that mentions a process for moving
> an ISSUE from a sub-list to the main list, but in such vague terms as not to
> be useful.
>
> 3. According to the wording of the last sentence, a member may raise an
> issue one day, and move it to the main ga list the next. Is this really the
> best wording we can manage?
>
> Let's look at the last sentence: " However, subscribers to GA-RULES may
> > > refer issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot or follow such other
> > > prescribed procedures that have been adopted by the General Assembly.
>
> What are ISSUES? I know that at least Bill Lovell will agree with me when I
> say that an ISSUE is "A condition of fact thought to exist on which it is
> believed that some action may be required" (because he drafted it as the
> definition being used for BEST PRACTICES). Now, doesn't that make a nonsense
> of the last sentence of this Motion?
>
> I therefore PROPOSE an AMENDMENT, and if necessary a POLL on the ga-rules
> list to determine which form of the Motion should go forward for a ballot:-
>
> AMENDMENT
>
> (1)    The GA list should be reserved for substantive issues relating to DNS
> policy.  All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures, etc.
> should be debated on GA-RULES until such time as and ISSUE has risen to the
> level of requiring a determinative ballot of the General Assembly.
>
> (2)    The list rules should be amended to include the exact wording of (1)
> above.
>
> If you can't agree with the new wording, then at least please indicate your
> concurrence that a problem exists with this last sentence, and let's discuss
> it futher on ga-rules.
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
>     On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> >
> > > The folowing motion has been proposed, seconded and amended.
> > >
> > > (1)    The GA list should be reserved for substantive issues relating to DNS
> > > policy.  All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures, etc.
> > > should be debated on GA-RULES.  However, subscribers to GA-RULES may
> > > refer issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot or follow such other
> > > prescribed procedures that have been adopted by the General Assembly.
> > >
> > > (2)    The list rules should be amended to include the exact wording of (1)
> > > above.
> > >
> > > As this motion has generated significant support, I would now ask that it
> > > be submitted to the DNSO Secretariat for a formal vote.
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > > Alternate Chair
> > >
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 19:56:18 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Request to suspend the DOC's .us RFQ posted

http://www.mediaaccess.org/filings/letter2doc.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: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 17:21:34 -0700
From: "Michael F. McNulty" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List

I seventh the motion.
Michael McNulty

"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:

> Patrick, thanks for making this motion "happen". It looks very sound to me
> as a practical approach to getting work done, and getting processes which
> enable work, developed.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 11:18 PM
> > > To: [email-masked]
> > > Cc: [ga]; DNSO Secretariat
> > > Subject: [ga] MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List
> > >
> > >
> > > The folowing motion has been proposed, seconded and amended.
> > >
> > > (1)    The GA list should be reserved for substantive issues
> > > relating to DNS
> > > policy.  All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols,
> > > procedures, etc.
> > > should be debated on GA-RULES.  However, subscribers to GA-RULES may
> > > refer issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot or
> > > follow such other
> > > prescribed procedures that have been adopted by the General Assembly.
> > >
> > > (2)    The list rules should be amended to include the exact
> > > wording of (1)
> > > above.
> > >
> > > As this motion has generated significant support, I would now
> > > ask that it
> > > be submitted to the DNSO Secretariat for a formal vote.
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > > Alternate Chair
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
>
> --
> Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
> to the reader may possibly be explained at:
> "WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
> GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 20:54:19 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Losing the Right to Vote

Dear Marilyn,

While I agree that all resources are finite, we are talking about the GA 
losing its right to vote until sometime in mid-to-late September.  We will 
not be able to vote upon the most current motion introduced by Patrick 
Corliss, nor will we be able to vote upon any other motions prior to 
Montevideo in view of the Secretariat's human resource shortage.  

You have suggested three different options... Perhaps another option is for 
the Names Council to authorize funds so that the Secretariat may hire the 
additional temporary staff required to get the job done.  Louis Touton has 
reported "DNSO Total Funds on Hand --  $135,042.47".  Spend the money, or 
deny us our voting rights.   The choice appears to be quite simple.

If this is truly a human resource problem, you solve it by hiring workers.

- --
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: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 22:05:43 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Losing the Right to Vote

I think the Chair makes an excellent point here.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

[email-masked] wrote:

> Dear Marilyn,
>
> While I agree that all resources are finite, we are talking about the GA
> losing its right to vote until sometime in mid-to-late September.  We will
> not be able to vote upon the most current motion introduced by Patrick
> Corliss, nor will we be able to vote upon any other motions prior to
> Montevideo in view of the Secretariat's human resource shortage.
>
> You have suggested three different options... Perhaps another option is for
> the Names Council to authorize funds so that the Secretariat may hire the
> additional temporary staff required to get the job done.  Louis Touton has
> reported "DNSO Total Funds on Hand --  $135,042.47".  Spend the money, or
> deny us our voting rights.   The choice appears to be quite simple.
>
> If this is truly a human resource problem, you solve it by hiring workers.
>
> --
> 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

- --
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, 14 Jul 2001 13:12:26 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Proposal for moving forward

Dear all,

it seems there is general agreement with the spirit
of Patrick's motion. Joanna Lana has raised concerns
about the wording, but it seems nobody has argued
that procedural issues /should/ be discussed on the
GA main list instead of GA-rules.

Why don't we simply agree to *follow* the rules until
such time when we have the resources and time to vote
on it and use the voting mechanism instead for those
issues which need to be voted on *now*? (I assume we will
not agree on a UDRP Task Force representative by debate...)

So, if you agree, *DON'T* reply to this mail on the
main GA list:
- -- if you have subscribed to [email-masked],
   debate it there if needed and
- -- if you have not subscribed to [email-masked],
   don't respond! :)

Just a reminder: The list of UDRP Task Force nominations
closes Monday, 16 July. The nomination for the ICANN
Board seat starts Monday, 23 July. The Whois survey and
the IDN follow-up survey close Tuesday, 31 July.

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: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 11:20:43 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposal for moving forward

Alexander,
Thank you for this post. I concur. In due course, we would be pleased to
post the BEST PRACTICES discussion draft to ga-rules, but would make a
"Secretariat style" formal announcement on the main list to simply announce
the date of publication and URL, with a request for comments to be made on
the ga-rules list. I hope this acceptable.

Regards,
Joanna 

on 7/14/01 7:12 AM, Alexander Svensson at [email-masked] wrote:

> 
> Dear all,
> 
> it seems there is general agreement with the spirit
> of Patrick's motion. Joanna Lana has raised concerns
> about the wording, but it seems nobody has argued
> that procedural issues /should/ be discussed on the
> GA main list instead of GA-rules.
> 
> Why don't we simply agree to *follow* the rules until
> such time when we have the resources and time to vote
> on it and use the voting mechanism instead for those
> issues which need to be voted on *now*? (I assume we will
> not agree on a UDRP Task Force representative by debate...)
> 
> So, if you agree, *DON'T* reply to this mail on the
> main GA list:
> -- if you have subscribed to [email-masked],
> debate it there if needed and
> -- if you have not subscribed to [email-masked],
> don't respond! :)
> 
> Just a reminder: The list of UDRP Task Force nominations
> closes Monday, 16 July. The nomination for the ICANN
> Board seat starts Monday, 23 July. The Whois survey and
> the IDN follow-up survey close Tuesday, 31 July.
> 
> 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: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 17:38:26 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga]  MOTION AMENDMENT

I understand there is an amendment - but to what text ?

If it is an amendment to the current GA Rules, version 0.4,
dated 6 Nov 2000
   http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules-v0.4.html
please quote which part is to be amended, i.e. sentence(s) 
to add, delete or to replace.

If it is an amendment to another text, please provide URL.

Elisabeth Porteneuve

- --------Original Message--------
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 15:40:37 -0400
Subject: Re: [ga]  MOTION AMENDMENT
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
To: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>, Peter de Blanc <[email-masked]>
CC: "[ga]" <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hang on! I really do have concerns about:-

1.  Members sending a Motion on a new rule to a ballot when there has been
no discussion whatsoever on how the new rule could be implemented. Shouldn't
that be debated before the vote is taken?

2. Members would be adopting a new RULE that mentions a process for moving
an ISSUE from a sub-list to the main list, but in such vague terms as not to
be useful. 
 
3. According to the wording of the last sentence, a member may raise an
issue one day, and move it to the main ga list the next. Is this really the
best wording we can manage?

Let's look at the last sentence: " However, subscribers to GA-RULES may
> > refer issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot or follow such other
> > prescribed procedures that have been adopted by the General Assembly.

What are ISSUES? I know that at least Bill Lovell will agree with me when I
say that an ISSUE is "A condition of fact thought to exist on which it is
believed that some action may be required" (because he drafted it as the
definition being used for BEST PRACTICES). Now, doesn't that make a nonsense
of the last sentence of this Motion?

I therefore PROPOSE an AMENDMENT, and if necessary a POLL on the ga-rules
list to determine which form of the Motion should go forward for a ballot:-

AMENDMENT

(1)    The GA list should be reserved for substantive issues relating to DNS
policy.  All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures, etc.
should be debated on GA-RULES until such time as and ISSUE has risen to the
level of requiring a determinative ballot of the General Assembly.

(2)    The list rules should be amended to include the exact wording of (1)
above.

If you can't agree with the new wording, then at least please indicate your
concurrence that a problem exists with this last sentence, and let's discuss
it futher on ga-rules.

Regards,
Joanna 

    On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > The folowing motion has been proposed, seconded and amended.
> >
> > (1)    The GA list should be reserved for substantive issues relating to DNS
> > policy.  All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures, etc.
> > should be debated on GA-RULES.  However, subscribers to GA-RULES may
> > refer issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot or follow such other
> > prescribed procedures that have been adopted by the General Assembly.
> >
> > (2)    The list rules should be amended to include the exact wording of (1)
> > above.
> >
> > As this motion has generated significant support, I would now ask that it
> > be submitted to the DNSO Secretariat for a formal vote.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Alternate Chair
> >

- --
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: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 01:57:32 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposal for moving forward

On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 13:12:26 +0200, Alexander Svennson wrote:

> Why don't we simply agree to *follow* the rules until
> such time when we have the resources and time to vote
> on it and use the voting mechanism instead for those
> issues which need to be voted on *now*?

Hi Alexander

Easy. Several people have said that they will post where they like.  With no
rule in place the List Monitors have no mechanism to enforce compliance.

In other words, we will be left with the "status quo".

And we can see where that is getting us !!!

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 01:57:40 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga]  MOTION AMENDMENT

On Fri, 13 Jul 2001 19:38:23 -0700, Derek Conant wrote:

> I agree with Joanna and this was also my concern in the first place.  To
> move the GA forward, I felt compelled to agree with Patrick's motion.  My
> position is that *we'll cross that bridge when we get to it*, unless you
> want to spend three weeks now debating the subject.

Exactly.  That's what we need to avoid.  In any case the wording us flexible
enough to allow for any future rule changes.

> I believe that a better topic to address would be granting certain GA
> representatives voting power to drive the GA process forward.  However,
> I've already tried to present this concept to the GA and maybe it was not
> understood.

I think you were understood quite well.  The major difficulty seems to be
that very few people are fool enough to accept the poisoned chalice.

<snip>
> The GA has the problems it has because it is not properly organized and
> because of this it cannot move significant agenda forward through any
> valid consensus process.

The fact is that debate about substantive DNS issues are diverted by
procedural arguments or points of order e.g. the list monitors delayed too
long, they followed the wrong procedure, the lists were not set up properly,
they should be posted to [ga-full], there is censorship etc etc.

As well, there are too many lists and some mmbers are deliberately reposting
stuff from one list to another.  Many people are getting confused.  There is
also a great debate on lists, list monitoring, excess postings and the like.

Every time the debate gets diverted, nothing gets done.  I'd like to end
that impasse by creating an environment for proper debate.  You have
indicated that you agree with that viewpoint.  I appreciate your efforts to
achieve a positive result and that of all who have lent their support.

I believe this motion will be overwhelmingly accepted by the GA membership.

Thank you all.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 01:57:26 +1000
From: "Alternate Chair" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Various constraints

On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 00:10:52 +0200 (MET DST), DNSO Secretariat:

> I am affraid that the Secretariat will have serious difficulties
> to follow the current rythme of votes requested by the GA.

Hi Elisabeth

Thank you for advising the General Assembly of your difficulties.

However, I am sure you are in favour of seeking the democratic expression
of the will of the body especially as we are following this path (of seeking
consensus for rule changes) at your specific request.

Perhaps the GA might be allowed to continue its processes and see where
it leads.  Should the request be made to conduct a vote, we can schedule
the process at a more suitable time according to your convenience.

Or use an alternative such as Joop's votebot as an interim measure.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 01:57:46 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List

Hi Joanna

The original wording of the motion was:

> All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures, etc. should be
> debated on GA-RULES. However, subscribers to GA-RULES may, by
> consensus, refer issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot.

When you objected to that I amended the wording to read:

> All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures, etc. should be
> debated on GA-RULES.  However, subscribers to GA-RULES may refer
> issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot or follow such other
> prescribed procedures that have been adopted by the General Assembly.

You have suggested an alternative form of wording:

> All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures, etc. should be
> debated on GA-RULES until such time as and ISSUE has risen to the
> level of requiring a determinative ballot of the General Assembly.

I cannot see how your wording improves on the amendment.  You agree that
there may be a "determinative ballot of the General Assembly" but you have
re-introduced a specific *trigger* which the amendment sought to avoid.

As well, the amendment catered for the possibility of some other form of
"prescribed procedures" which the GA might introduce at some future time.

There are 13 supporters for the present proposal as follows:

*    Peter de Blanc
*    Roeland Meyer
*    Leah Gallegos
*    Jefsey Morfin
*    Ken Stubbs
*    William S. Lovell
*    Marilyn Cade
*    Ross Wm. Rader (for Tucows)
*    Bradley Thornton
*    Alexander Svennson
*    Michael McNulty
*    Derek Conant (with reservations)
*    Patrick Corliss (myself)

As this motion now has significant support I would call upon the Chair to
arrange a vote to be conducted in the most expeditious manner.

Thank you.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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, 14 Jul 2001 12:07:17 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List

Patrick, Joanna, et al.

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi Joanna
>
> The original wording of the motion was:
>
> > All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures, etc. should be
> > debated on GA-RULES. However, subscribers to GA-RULES may, by
> > consensus, refer issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot.
>
> When you objected to that I amended the wording to read:
>
> > All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures, etc. should be
> > debated on GA-RULES.  However, subscribers to GA-RULES may refer
> > issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot or follow such other
> > prescribed procedures that have been adopted by the General Assembly.
>
> You have suggested an alternative form of wording:
>
> > All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures, etc. should be
> > debated on GA-RULES until such time as an ISSUE has risen to the
> > level of requiring a determinative ballot of the General Assembly.
>
> I cannot see how your wording improves on the amendment.  You agree that
> there may be a "determinative ballot of the General Assembly" but you have
> re-introduced a specific *trigger* which the amendment sought to avoid.

I have a question with respect to your wording Patrick, and then one for Joanna.

Patrick, when you say:

>However, subscribers to GA-RULES may refer
> issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot or follow such other
> prescribed procedures that have been adopted by the General Assembly.

Does this mean that any subscriber to the ga-rules may refer issues to the full
GA at any given time?
I'm sure I'm just being a little obtuse here.. but I'd like this point clarified
please.

Joanna, with respect to debates that relate to ga-rules, when you state "until
such time as an ISSUE has risen to the level of requiring a determinative
ballot", what xactly do you mean by "risen to the level"?  What exactly is the
standard?  I wonder if you might be able to avoid the term "consensus" in your
response, and just be a little more specific in characterization than said term
allows.

I'd like to have both of these points cleared before I support or reject a
motion on these matters.

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: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 03:39:54 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List

On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 12:07:17 -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> Patrick, when you say:
>
> >However, subscribers to GA-RULES may refer
> > issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot or follow such other
> > prescribed procedures that have been adopted by the General Assembly.
>
> Does this mean that any subscriber to the ga-rules may refer issues to the
> full GA at any given time?

Hi Sotiris

Thank you for your careful analysis.

I withdrew the term "by consensus" to satisfy Joanna's objection.  This had
the unintended side-effect of leaving the words "subscribers may" without
any qualifier.  Perhaps this is what Joanna and Derek identified as a weak
point in the motion.  Thank you both.

The addition of the alternative ("or follow such other prescribed procedures
that have been adopted by the General Assembly") means that the words "by
consensus" might only apply to the first occasion viz. when the subscribers
are initiating "other prescribed procedures".

It would, therefore, probably be safe enough to say:

- --------- Amended Wording ----------
All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures, etc. should be
conducted on the [ga-rules] mailing list   Subscribers to that list may, by
consensus or other prescribed procedures, refer issues to the full General
Assembly for a determinative ballot.

Note.  The term "prescribed procedures" refers to procedures which have been
submitted to such a determinative ballot and formally adopted by the General
Assembly.
- ---------------------------------------------

I appreciate that it is a little more cumbersome but I cannot see a simpler
way to amend the motion without creating a "bootstrapping" problem in the
first reference to the GA.

The only question is whether we agree on the words "by consensus".  However,
as this is our present procedure, I can see no real alternative.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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, 14 Jul 2001 10:48:46 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga]  MOTION AMENDMENT

> From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 12:41 PM
> 
> Hang on! I really do have concerns about:-
> 
> 1.  Members sending a Motion on a new rule to a ballot when 
> there has been
> no discussion whatsoever on how the new rule could be 
> implemented. Shouldn't
> that be debated before the vote is taken?

Agreed, there are some issues with this. One of the main reasons that most
organizations have committees and working groups is exactly this. Their main
purpose is to keep discussions focused with those that have sufficient
interest, without becoming a large distraction for those that would rather
work on something else. You are asking the question of how such
organizations determine that the new topic has both sufficient interest to
populate a group and yet is focused enough to confine itself to such a
group.

> 2. Members would be adopting a new RULE that mentions a 
> process for moving
> an ISSUE from a sub-list to the main list, but in such vague 
> terms as not to be useful. 

The simplistic answer is to leave that up to the chair. However, I suspect
that would be an unacceptable response for many here. A more complex answer
would be to form a "topic discussion board" of some sort. But then we rise
to a level of bureucracy that may weigh very heavy on this sized group.
Also, this was the down-fall of the French "Old Republic",
excessive/oppressive bureucracy. I suggest leaving it up to the chairs
(since they are elected officials) whilst having constant review in the rulz
committee. This should satisfy both concerns.

> 3. According to the wording of the last sentence, a member 
> may raise an issue one day, and move it to the main ga list the next. Is 
> this really the best wording we can manage?

I think that a member could only move it to the main GA with consent of the
majority of the committee. Actual, real-life, committees and WGs have a
chair that controls this. The chairs are also responsible for preparing the
cmte reports and summaries. However, we then get back to the
man-power/bureucracy issues. We just don't have enough folks that want that
job. Given the lack of leadership man-power be may be stuck with relying on
committee consensus and ignoring/disciplining the occasional loose-canons
(not a typo). Note that I am NOT using "consensus" and "majority" as
interchangable terms here. 

I am of the opinion that there needs to be, at the minimum, a polling method
to determine the cmte's opinion, general mind-set, and to approve the output
of the cmte. It is a process that needs "entry criteria", "process rules",
"exit criteria", and "evidence of completion".
The issue there is what degree of formalism to adopt. I further believe that
this needs to be discussed on GA-RULES and a final report released to this
assembly.

At the end of the day, the desired result is that focused discussion only
occurs in cmte whilst the rest of us maintain the general policy
discussions, occasionally pushing topics out to more cmtes, as they come up.
Further, that the GA receives the summary results from the cmtes. If we can
get that to happen then the GA might actually be able to get something done,
at all, in a reasonable fashion.

In summary, I agree with the spirit, even if I may not quite agree with the
wording, of this amendment.

> AMENDMENT
> 
> (1)    The GA list should be reserved for substantive
> issues relating to DNS policy.  All debate relating to
> rules, lists, protocols, procedures, etc. should be debated
> on GA-RULES until such time as and ISSUE has risen to
> the level of requiring a determinative ballot of the
> General Assembly.
> 
> (2)    The list rules should be amended to include the exact 
> wording of (1)above.
> 
> If you can't agree with the new wording, then at least please 
> indicate your
> concurrence that a problem exists with this last sentence, 
> and let's discuss
> it futher on ga-rules.
- --
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 #613
************************