Re: [wg-d] Overview

["Timothy Denton" <tmdenton@magma.ca>]

Robert's Rules of Order are better than the discretion of the Chairmen,
given the contentious and parliamentary nature of what will takeplace in
DNSO meetings. Interests are opposed. Tempers may be short. There needs to
be an objective, demonstrably fair way of dealing with conflict. Though we
may rely on the good faith of Chairmen, the nature of rules is such that
they are most often preferable as the means of dealing with conflictual
situations.




----- Original Message -----
From: Bret A. Fausett <baf@fausett.com>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 1999 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: [wg-d] Overview


> > 4.6 Real-Time Work
> > Why should they be governed by Robertīs Rules? To my understanding
Robert
> > Rules is something so complicated that only a few poeple in the US know
> > them properly. And they are completely unknown to the rest of the world.
> > Why must we then adopt something that complicated? Canīt we find any
> > simpler way of working?
>
> Just to recap and pose a new question...
>
> There was a fair amount of discussion of Robert's Rule early in our
> dialogue here. Although some proponents wanted to port Robert's Rules to
> the online world in its entirety, most of the pro-RR comments seemed to be
> asking for some simple way of making and seconding motions, moving
> discussions to a close, and polling members on what they favored. Mark
> Langston made a pass through RR and listed several kinds of motions that
> would help our online discussions. That's what you now see in draft 1: a
> very, very light version of Robert's Rules.
>
> For live meetings, it seemed natural to put Robert's Rules into place in
> toto, because it was relatively well known (for rules of parliamentary
> procedure) and was the standard that ICANN itself had adopted for its
> meetings and those of the DNSO Names Council.
>
> In reviewing the draft ICANN Bylaw changes now out for public comment,
> however, I note that ICANN proposes to delete the language (Article V,
> Section 24) that adopted Robert's Rules. The staff comment reads: "ROBERTS
> RULES LANGUAGE DELETED; EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN THIS WAS A BAD IDEA THAT
> SHOULD BE DISCARDED."
> See, http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws-amend-redline-8oct99.htm
>
> Eva and Jon seem to share that sentiment.
>
> ICANN has not proposed any new language on how meetings should be
> governed. If we too drop Robert's Rules for live meetings, is there a
> better alternative to put in its place? In the absence of a better
> alternative, I think you're at the discretion of the Co-Chairs. Is that
> acceptable? Or is Robert's Rules better than nothing?
>
>        -- Bret
>