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

[Joe Baptista <baptista@pccf.net>]

I for one am very interested in having you proceed, but I think it prudent
for me to see the replies and level of interest in this before you invest
your time.

The work you have done is good, but I agree with your observations it may
be a waste of time if the ICANN-IBM puppets don't support it.

Regards
Joe baptista

On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Mark C. Langston wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 08:23:39AM -0800, Mark C. Langston wrote:
> > 
> > http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-d/Archives/msg00223.html
> >   covers the substantial motions, gives analysis, and justification for
> >   adoption or rejection of each.
> 
> I'd also like to point out that much of what I proposed here has been
> independently implemented in other WGs, e.g., WG-C's "position papers"
> are identical to the "limit or extend limits of debate" Motion.
> 
> Finally, I'd like to speak to something I've noticed which concerns
> me: The perceived awkwardness of parliamentary procedure.  Yes, when
> it's initially implemented, it can be a bit awkward, because not
> everyone is familiar with the procedure.  However, over time, it
> becomes second nature.  When you make a Motion, you don't always
> formally announce, "I would like to make a motion: The motion is
> $FOO".  Instead, work proceeds apace, and as long as it's implicit
> that what one is doing falls within the framework of Motions that are
> currently in order, the formality disappears.  Usually, in a Body that
> has adapted itself to parliamentary procedure, the 'formality' is
> evidenced only when there is contention among the members of the Body,
> or between the Body and the Chair.  When people work together, you'd
> be hard-pressed to distinguish the language from current WG
> practice...of course, the work itself may seem more organized due to
> the parliamentary framework.
> 
> Don't misunderstand me, however: The formality is there, and it's
> there for clarity's sake; when someone is being contentious, it
> behooves everyone to be very clear about what's occurring.
> Parliamentary procedure buys us all something ICANN sorely lacks: A
> set of rules agreed to by all participants within which everyone will
> work, and within which lay a rigid set of procedures for doing things
> and handling disputes.  In short, it eliminates the "we'll do things
> this way for now, and then we'll change them completely for this
> thing, and now we'll handle problems in this way, since someone
> brought one to our attention..." process we've been subjected to by
> the NC in various aspects of the DNSO's work.  Everyone might not
> agree with all the rules, and everyone might not be happy with the
> outcome, but the rules are stark, clear, and available well ahead of
> time.  There is also the comfort in knowing that the NC won't change
> them at the last minute, or ex post facto.  
> 
> The ruleset I propose would bind not only WGs, but all aspects of
> effort within the DNSO, from the NC to the GA to the WGs (the
> Constituencies would be free to adopt them or ignore them for work
> within their respective Bodies, however).  In short, things would be
> done by a particular set of procedures, would be done correctly, and
> would be done in a way that all the participants have a means of
> calling into question the process as it unfolds, to ensure fairness
> and equity.
> 
> As I mentioned in one of the documents I referenced earlier, the
> formality and procedure introduced with contention also acts in an
> interesting way as its own check against contention: Many people don't
> like the added formality, and so they tend to attempt to work together
> amicably to avoid its introduction.
> 
> As I read through the documents, I realized I never bothered to write
> the document detailing the powers and responsibilities of a Chair --
> mainly because no one seemed to care about the proposal, and it took a
> lot of effort to whittle down a >100-page document to a few pages.  If
> there's actually interest in this now, I could be talked into writing
> that document.  It's crucial that it exist if these are going to be
> considered, since this document would include the powers of censure
> and expulsion, two topics that have been the center of discussion on
> this list for the past few weeks or so.
> 
> However, don't expect me to do the work just because as things now
> stand the proposal is incomplete.  I've come to see very little value
> in contributing my time to ICANN, and I'm not about to sit down and
> write it 'just because'.  If these stand a serious chance of being
> adopted, I'll consider it.
> 
> -- 
> Mark C. Langston
> mark@bitshift.org
> Systems Admin
> San Jose, CA
>