RE: [ga] Re: Robert's rules

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Actually, if one recalls the San Jose DNSO NC meeting, knowledge of RR was sadly lacking, even the fellah  that bought the book, never thought it worthy of reading. Randy Bush was actually doing the parliamentarian job and that is sad. It was simplt an issue of the one-eyed, in the land of the sightless. With weeks worth of notice, NONE of the NC, save one, even bothered to buy the book, and NONE bothered to actually open the covers, much less read it.

It suprisd me not at all when the ICANN/DNSO subsequently dropped the RR requirement. After all, why risk the NC actually being effective and orderly? Further, why make a DNSO member actually learn something new and why make an NC member actually have to know how to do the job?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Joe
> Baptista
> Sent: Friday, January 07, 2000 10:27 AM
> To: Kent Crispin
> Cc: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Robert's rules
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> > As was announced at the time, they were removed because they were
> > unworkable in the ICANN context, which includes many non-english
> > speakers with no knowledge of parliamentary procedure.  The Names 
> > Council meetings, in particular, were very chaotic, and 
> those that had 
> > knowledge of RRs had a distinct advantage over those who didn't.
> 
> Oh I see, we should reduce ourselves to the lowest common 
> denominator.  If
> people can't learn new rules of proceedure maybe they should be
> dumped.  My recommendation is that we not follow third world 
> standards in
> meetings.
> 
> 
> Regards
> joe Baptista
> 
>