[atlarge-discuss] Point of Order Re: [atlarge-discuss] Domain Name:icannatlarge.org

[espresso@e-scape.net]

May I add my voice to clamour asking our Acting Chair of the Interim Panel to contact Marc Schneiders forthwith and ask him what it will take to get *both* of those names transferred to this soon-to-be-organized organization?

We should note that said transfer cannot be made to a non-existent entity. If we are not able to use a quick-and-dirty process to register the group before its incorporation (as Jefsey has already offered to do for us in France) so as to have the ownership transferred to it, then it might be an idea to ask that the domain be transferred to the members of the Web WG (naming all the individuals) after resolving that they be collectively responsible for it until the incorporation has been done.

The suggestion that a preferential balloting conducted under one set of conditions can be infinitely manipulated in the light of new circumstances strikes me as a *serious* error. Although members were asked to rank their choices at the time, they might well have ranked things differently given a different set of options, so David's suggestion of a recount simply dropping out one option is subject to the most of the same objections as were made when it was suggested that that option be dropped from the ballot while the voting was taking place.

As for the idea that it's "mickey mouse" for a democratic organization to vote more than once ... well, as far as I am concerned, it's simply irresponsible in a democracy to think that voting for what one believes isn't worth the effort of putting an "X" on a ballot and hitting "Reply". If more than a handful of the 1000 members think they can have an impact on Internet governance without being responsible enought to cast their votes, it's no wonder democracy is being so eroded in "meatspace". 

In fact, I would argue that the reasons only 20% of the membership cast their ballots last time around were 
a) we were supposedly choosing a name for the organization but were instead voting on only domain names already registered, and 
b) it was hard to tell at any given moment whether the vote would be stopped, completely but subsequently nullified for cause, or considered binding. 
If this time around the ballot were to spell out that we are choosing amongst a list of *domain* names available to us at that moment (and it obviously won't be identical to the previous list) so as to set up a new site, and that the choice is of some importance since it represents the first concrete step to becoming a real organization, perhaps there would be a better turnout. I sincerely hope so -- if not, there is little hope those members will have anything meaningful to say within this group, let alone to ICANN.

Anyway, I'd like to remind us all that there are TWO motions on the floor at this moment, both properly proposed and seconded, and democratic procedure requires they be attended to without delay.

1. A "yes" or "no" vote on :
       MOVED that we put the question (below) to a vote ASAP.
             (Proposed: J. Mermelstein; seconded J.-F.C. Morfin)
     
If it's "no", we go on debating; if it's "yes" we immediately vote on

2. >   MOVED we ask the membership whether they want the word
>      "ICANN" in our name - YES or NO
             (Proposed: Richard Henderson; seconded: Chris McElroy)

Under _Robert's Rules of Order_ and most other handbooks for the orderly conduct of an organization's affairs
- any member may propose or second any motion that seems appropriate
- when a motion has been duly proposed and seconded, the Chair calls for discussion of the motion and, if discussion comes to a natural end, calls for a vote
- if the discussion veers off elsewhere or indicates there is neither agreement on it nor a desire to amend it, any member may move to "put the question" -- i.e., call for an immediate vote -- and if that motion is duly seconded, the Chair calls for a immediate vote which determines whether the original motion will carry as written.

This discussion list is the equivalent of a meeting of the membership of this group. Much of the discussion is a free-for-all -- the open exchange of ideas which a democracy seeks to foster -- but eventually there comes a time when one must make a decision and move on to other business. 

This type of vote is normally done by a show of hands of those present at the meeting, rather than by a secret ballot as is the case for elections or the ratification of bylaws. It's pretty straightforward: the Chair calls for a vote, the members vote, and the motion either carries or fails. 

In our situation, it may be that participants in this list are a minority among the membership. In that case, it would be proper to send a ballot to all registered members on the main motion (that is, asking for approval by the membership of a new ballot as to whether "ICANN" shouldd be part of the name). Still, I believe it is legitimate to ask for a vote of list participants on whether or not they want that ballot to be sent... which was the intent of my motion to put the question of Richard's motion -- which asks members *here* to vote on whether the Panel should organize a "yes/no" ballot for the whole membership.

I know procedural matters seem terribly boring to some of you but the reason organizations adopt Rules of Order is because these actually help to clarify issues, obtain a democratic vote, and go on to implement its results. In the absence of basic rules or the will to apply them, we get free-form arguments and organizational paralysis. Alternatively, we get a situation where the only things that actually get done are the ones individuals will do without worrying about whether or not they have a mandate to go ahead ... which can be fairly efficient, given the right individuals, but doesn't in any way resemble a democracy. 

Unfortunately, it is time to make up our minds about what we are really trying to accomplish and figure out how to work constructively together. As I've said before, there is no sense at all to worrying about new Web sites and recruiting and donatiions and all that if we can't even say clearly what it is we will do and by what kind of process.

Regards,

Judyth

P.S. If there were to be a whole new ballot on the name issue, there should first be a call for other suggestions. There are other domain names out there, already registered or not, which might be as suitable. On the other hand, if there were a revote on the previous list, it should include the icann-at-large.org variant which Jefsey owns.




##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
##########################################################
"A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
##########################################################



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de