Post by markm on Oct 25, 2011 13:03:26 GMT -5
I suggest the group consider, if it already hasn’t, requiring that all proposals brought before the GA be in written form. Here are a few pros and cons:
Pros:
1. Putting thought to paper is a clarifying process. It would lead to clearer, more concise thought out proposals.
2. Clearer proposals could lead to shorter debate time. A lot of peoples concerns may be answered in a clearer proposal.
3. Having a written proposal (especially if it was a long or complicated proposal) to reference would aid the person presenting the proposal when addressing concerns of the assembly.
4. If amendments were to be considered it would be easier to do if the presenter had a written copy to reference.
5. Requiring a written proposal would emphasize the importance of proposals. A working group shouldn’t send someone up there with a few ideas and expect them to articulate a proposal on the spot.
Cons:
1. It may lead to less proposals. Not sure this is a con but it is all I can think of..
Pros:
1. Putting thought to paper is a clarifying process. It would lead to clearer, more concise thought out proposals.
2. Clearer proposals could lead to shorter debate time. A lot of peoples concerns may be answered in a clearer proposal.
3. Having a written proposal (especially if it was a long or complicated proposal) to reference would aid the person presenting the proposal when addressing concerns of the assembly.
4. If amendments were to be considered it would be easier to do if the presenter had a written copy to reference.
5. Requiring a written proposal would emphasize the importance of proposals. A working group shouldn’t send someone up there with a few ideas and expect them to articulate a proposal on the spot.
Cons:
1. It may lead to less proposals. Not sure this is a con but it is all I can think of..