RE: [council] Request assisting Names council withParliamentaryprocedures

[Theresa Swinehart <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>]

Nigel -

Thanks much - yes, your absolutely right,I do remember we talked about this,
and I'm glad you made this clear here. Sorry to have missed that in sending
in the request - appreciate you pointing that out!

Theresa

-----Original Message-----
From:	Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@roberts.co.uk]
Sent:	Friday, September 17, 1999 5:32 AM
To:	Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com
Cc:	mclaughlin@pobox.com; council@dnso.org
Subject:	Re: [council] Request assisting Names council with
Parliamentaryprocedures

I support this move for advice and assistance. I think it is needed.

However as a minor point I would PLEASE request that we cease from using the
word 'Parliamentary' in this context which I find extremely confusing, even,
or
especially as an (alleged) native speaker of English

In my native language (English) this word is used /only/ to refer to

1. either of the two Houses in the British mainland's parliament, or

2. (-without- the initial capitalisation) to mean a similar National
Assembly
(e.g. House of Representatives, Bundestag) in other countries.

It is also occasionally used in the negative to imply swearing or calling
someone a liar (as found in the expression  "unparliamentary language"). It
is
not understood to have a meaning outside the context of a real national
parliament.

A more useful expression which I think is reasonably widely understood would
be
'standing orders'.

This is the term which refers to the procedures by which societies, unions,
political parties, non-profit corporations and similar &c &c regulate their
meetings.
I hope this suggestion is helpful.

[When I first hear the word 'parliamentary' used this way I / seriously/
thought
it meant there was a proposal for us to use the same procedures used by the
US
Congress!]


Nigel Roberts (a former Parliamentary -- /with/ the capital P -- candidate!)

Theresa Swinehart wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> Following discussion on the Council listserve following the Santiago NC
> meeting, there is agreement that the issue of meeting procedures must be
> addressed and resolved for the NC meetings. Without any precedent, the
Names
> Council of the DNSO would like to request the Berkman Center (i.e.,
> designate appropriate staff) to work with the NC members to develop and
> implement procedures for the efficient conduct of business at NC meetings.
> These procedures would be suggested in time for consideration and possible
> implementation at the NC meeting scheduled after the one on September 15th
> (date still to be determined).
>
> Is this something the Berkman Center could assist in fulfilling?
>
> Theresa