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

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 01:25:48 -0400, espresso@e-scape.net wrote:

>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?

Marc has already resolved this for us.

>We should note that said transfer cannot be made to a
>non-existent entity. 

Nope so we need to get on with a constitution and then incorporation.

>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. 

I agree they can not be *infinitely* manipulated.  If there was a
ranked ballot with ten choices and the top eight choices all became
unavailable I'd be saying that you shouldn;t just choose between the
9th and 10th.  

But for a situation like this when there was the chance of merely one
option being unavailable then no problems.  As it happens this is
academic anyway as it is now available thanks to Marc who has my
sincere thanks.

>As for the idea that it's "mickey mouse" for a democratic 
>organization to vote more than once ... 

Mickey Mouse to vote more than once on an issue which had already been
resolved just a few days earlier.  Our members I suspect want to see
us make progress on issues such as a constitution, determining our
position wrt ICANN reform, ongoing membership campaign, setting up an
individual registrants sub-group to petition for gNSO constituency
etc.

>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.

Well actually we don't have any such procedures yet because we are yet
to adopt motion and voting rules for the general membership.  I would
suggest that one should not assume that merely two members can force a
vote on any issue they want amongst all 1,000 members.  We could end
up with 20 votes a day if that was the case.

Until such time as we adopt a constitution (where I would suggest one
has a threshold for moving a membership motion such as 2 - 5% signing
a petition etc) then the panel are the ones who need to use their
judgement as to how often we call for membership wide votes.

>Under _Robert's Rules of Order_ and most other handbooks for the orderly conduct of an organization's affairs

These apply to situations where one gathers specifically for the
purpose of a meeting which will consider motions etc.  For example a
regular monthly general meeting.  They are not wholly applicable to an
online organisation which effectively meets 365 days a year.  

Don't get me wrong - I am not against having membership votes as
needed - in fact in InternetNZ I am responsible for changing the
constitution so that members can vote on much more stuff by e-mail or
online ballot.  However one needs a threshold of more than two
members.  Ours is 20 members or 5%.

>This discussion list is the equivalent of a meeting of the membership of this group. 

Actually no decisions have been taken on whether the discussion list
has any powers at all.  I personally support that it does have some
role beyond merely discussion but this has not been determined.

>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. 

Agreed.  But what we need to do is firstly have a constitution which
defines our basic, entrenched  and unbreakable rules.  Then after that
you develop subordinate rules such as meeting procedure etc.

DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527

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