Re: Robert's rules (Re: [ga] Blockage/delay of postings)

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no> wrote:
| 
| At 02:19 06.01.00 -0500, Joe Baptista wrote:
| >Exactly Karl - and this is not the place for a censored list - we are a
| >general assembly - time for roberts rules of order.
| 
| It would be interesting to attempt to conduct business on a mailing list 
| under Robert's Rules of Order.
| Quote from http://www.constitution.org/rror/rror-07.htm#43
| 
| "Disorderly words should be taken down by the member who objects to them, 
| or by the secretary, and then read to the member. If he denies them, the 
| assembly shall decide by a vote whether they are his words or not. If a 
| member cannot justify the words he used, and will not suitably apologize 
| for using them, it is the duty of the assembly to act in the case. If the 
| disorderly words are of a personal nature, after each party has been heard, 
| and before the assembly proceeds to deliberate upon the case, both parties 
| to the personality should retire, it being a general rule that no member 
| should be present in the assembly when any matter relating to himself is 
| under debate."
| 
| If this is taken to mean that any member of the GA list calling another 
| member a liar is unsubscribed from the GA list until his words have been 
| debated, the GA list could become a rather quiet place.
| 
| See also rules #72 and #73, same source.
| 
| I don't believe this is appropriate for a mailing list, due to the 
| multistranded nature of mailing list discussions, but those who ask for 
| Robert's rules of order should be ready to accept the consequences.
| 
|                      Harald
| 
==> 
    Let me add few comments. I did not browsed the complete
    Robert's Rules of Order Revised by General Henry M. Robert 1915 Version,
    Public Domain http://www.constitution.org/rror/rror--00.htm,
    but from what I read it was written for men's world, and the #43
    quoted includes exemples like:
         "Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the gentleman a question."
    In the anglo-american men's world, calling somebody a "liar" is
    offten given as utmostly offending personnal attack.
    I would add that it is utmostly offending personnal attack, but still
    a civilised one. However there is something much below that,
    the situation when the person writing "disorderly words" is humiliating
    himself, and placing himself out of civilised world.
    I mention the situation when in a debate (here ICANN/DNSO GA business)
    a personnal attack is targetting somebody's reputation as
    a woman or a mother (should be also as a men and a father,
    but recent exemple on this forum was mostly aimed at women).
    I do not think that this kind of "disorderly words" should
    be consider as common as others, if we still claim to be humans,
    with some meaning attached to it.

    Elisabeth Porteneuve