Re: [registrars] Proposals for Rules for the Association

[Timothy Denton <tmdenton@magma.ca>]

Rob: 
It is my view that at some point, discussion must move to resolution. An orderly process 
of getting proposals on the table, discussed and considered is needed. The politicking 
that produces consensus is necessary, but eventually we need agreed words.

Some doubt that any process of on-line decision making is possible, and that we need to 
organize for face to face meetings only, with allowances ofr proxies for those who cannot 
afford to get to ICANN meetings.


Accordingly, the need for votes, proposals, and formal motions is clear. Whether we are 
able to settle issues by electronic means, or whether we will be restricted to settling 
them in face to face meetings, is an open question.

The draft rules was a first attempt; I will think about the comments and try to respond 
to everyone intelligently.

And as to your parting shot,my reply is: if you do not want to be governed, govern 
yourself. I believe in self-government. The registrars are in the process of trying to 
work out their own form of self-government. It is a serious enterprise and needs a lot of 
thinking and creativity. I am sure you will supply your share.

Tim


On Aug 21, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.ca> wrote:
> 
> At 04:12 PM 8/21/2001 -0400, you wrote:
> >I was more proposing that a Robert's Rules construct be adopted where
> >
> >a) the original motion is properly carried or defeated
> >b) amendments to the original motion are moved and then properly carried or
> >defeated.
> 
> Actually, if memory serves, Roberts rules of order (no, not mine, but the 
> official version!) is the reverse of this .... the amendments are voted on 
> or accepted as friendly by the original motion maker prior to the vote on 
> the entire motion being held ...
> 
> I believe that is how so many attachments are made to U.S. bills prior to 
> their being passed.
> 
> But, I have that little burgundy book around here somewhere and I can dig 
> it out ....
> 
> 
> I would like to make a comment on the whole though,
> 
> It seems to me that we should be looking more for a consensus building 
> procedure rather than a parliamentary style.  Parliamentary is setup to be 
> adversarial, and that is not what we want.  While we do need to vote on 
> some issues, it should not be the defacto procedure for dealing with 
> something.  Putting in place a complex parliamentary procedure could just 
> bog us down further in red tape.
> 
> Rob.
> 
> P.S.  And all this from Tim who has the bumper sticker "There's no 
> government, like NO GOVERNMENT!"  Sheesh <grin>.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Rob Hall                                voice  (613) 768-5100
> President                                  fax  (613) 820-0777
> Momentous.ca Corp.		
> rob@momentous.ca                      www.momentous.ca
> 
> 
> 
> iti,s
> 
> 
> Timothy Denton, BA BCL
tmdenton.com
Telecom and Internet Issues
37 Heney Street
Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1N 5V6
tmdenton@magma.ca - phone (613) 789-5397 - fax 613-789-5398
http://www.tmdenton.com