RE: [registrars] Re: Not so fast Rick!!!!! Hold off on the election

[Michael Bilow <mbilow@registrationtek.com>]

I think it's going to be pretty tough to discuss this "without commenting
on the particular issue."  My personal opinion is that the proper and
obvious solution is to regard all nominations made within the specified
time interval as valid and put the ballots to the members accordingly.  
Reopening nominations generally would have unfair consequences.

I was aware of the bylaws revision process, but it didn't occur to me that
(1) the "wrong" set would remain officially posted and (2) the "right" set
would continue to be labeled "draft" and would not be officially posted.

We're an organization of _registrars_, and keeping track of things is what
we do professionally.  Our screwing up the bylaws document is like a bunch
of librarians losing books.

-- Mike


On 2003-06-02 at 16:29 -0400, Elana Broitman wrote:

> Without commenting on the particular issue, I want to note that the
> "draft" bylaws were actually adopted by the constituency after several
> months of public discussion, drafting, and calls scheduled to explain
> the bylaws.  So, they should be treated as the RC bylaws and rules of
> procedure. As for their interpretation on this issue, it seems to me
> that Ross' post provided a good solution in extending the time for
> nominations (and the benefit of actually following the bylaws).
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Bilow [mailto:mbilow@registrationtek.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 4:23 PM
> To: wessorh@ar.com
> Cc: Jim Archer; Registrars List; John Berryhill
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Re: Not so fast Rick!!!!! Hold off on the
> election
> 
> 
> So you are following the draft bylaws posted at byte.org, rather than the
> bylaws posted on the constituency's official web site?
> 
> I think we should step back a moment and try to look at what the common
> sense motivation was for any election procedures which we use.  Trying to
> appply a lot of rules devoid of context is going to lead to an extremely
> legalistic analysis that these rules may not survive.  Everyone needs to
> at least be on the same page and agree what the rules are.
> 
> Whomever drafted the clause you quote below is also very unfamiliar with
> Robert's and its history.  Since Robert (an American Civil War general)
> wrote the original rules a long time ago, some of the early versions have
> fallen out of copyright and found their way to web sites.  This is the
> case of, say, the _1915_ 4th edition of "Robert's Rules of Order Revised."  
> What any reasonable organization would adopt as a parliamentary authority
> today is called "Robert's Rules of Order _Newly_ Revised," which is up to
> about the 10th edition as of 2000.  The proper edition, which you must buy
> in book form, takes into account modern practices such as mail balloting.
> 
> Regardless, it seems to me that the clause also explicitly avoids adopting
> Robert's for governance of elections, although I have no idea why it was
> written that way.  Nevertheless, it would seem that, even if this clause
> from the draft bylaws is in force, Robert's would not apply to elections.
> 
> -- Mike
> 
> 
> On 2003-06-02 at 13:05 -0700, Rick Wesson wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > For your refrence section 4.2.3
> > 
> > 4.2.3. Physical and teleconference meetings of the Executive Committee,
> >        Elected Representatives, committees and other organizational units
> >        of the Registrar Constituency shall conduct their business in accordance with
> >        Robert's Rules of Order (4th edition, www.rulesonline.com).
> > 
> > see http://www.byte.org/rc-bylaws-wg/ballot/gnso-rc-bylaws-draft-043003-v3r0d1.pdf
> > 
> > 
> > -rick
> > 
> > On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, Michael Bilow wrote:
> > 
> > > I don't have Robert's in front of me, but my recollection is (1) our
> > > bylaws did not adopt Robert's as its parliamentary authority, and (2)
> > > Robert's has a number of alternative mechanisms for elections procedures,
> > > intended to be suited to a range of different organizations which might
> > > range from those who meet in person once a week to those who conduct all
> > > their business by mail once every year.  Robert's certainly does not
> > > intend that it be used as a primary authority on elections, and it
> > > strongly suggests that such matters be addressed in detail in the bylaws.
> > >
> > > It is also worth noting that Robert's is a very American product, and a
> > > lot of its practices will seem strange or unnatural to those outside the
> > > United States tradition of parliamentary practice.
> > >
> > > In any event, it is my recollection that Robert's imposes no universal
> > > requirement that a nomination be accepted by the close of nominations,
> > > although it makes sense to do this where the election is being conducted
> > > by a small group meeting in person and where all of the nominees are
> > > physically present in the room.  Where the organization is more dispersed
> > > and the balloting will be conducted by mail, there is no logical reason to
> > > impose such a requirement and, to the best of my recollection, Robert's
> > > does not do so.  Your action certainly comes as a surprise.
> > >
> > > -- Mike
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2003-06-02 at 11:44 -0700, Rick Wesson wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Jim,
> > > >
> > > > did Dr. Berryhill agree to stand before nominations close? Our bylaws to
> > > > state the use of Roberts Rules and in section 4.3.5 nomees are required to
> > > > post a acceptance by the close of nominations shich closed las friday,
> > > > furthremore you may consule section II of the rules of proceure.
> > > >
> > > > Since we did not get an acceptance posed to the list before friday
> > > > I don't see how we can have an election for Secretary at this time.
> > > >
> > > > I propose that we hold another nomination period for secretary after the
> > > > eletions of the seats we have, at that time you may nominate Dr Berryhill
> > > > for secretary.
> > > >
> > > > -rick
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, Jim Archer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Rick, Dr. Berryhill has agreed to stand for election.  As you suggested in
> > > > > a private email to me last week, I carefully reviewed the bylaws posted on
> > > > > the RC site and saw no requirement in the bylaws that John actually accept
> > > > > the nomination.  His nomination for both Chair and Secretary is valid.
> > > > >
> > > > > Furthermore, if neither Elana nor Rob were nominated for Secretary then
> > > > > they can not be on the ballot.
> > > > >
> > > > > I insist that this election not begin until this issue is resolved!
> > > > >
> > > > > Jim
> > > > >
> > > > > --On Monday, June 02, 2003 8:05 AM -0700 Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Registrars:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The period for nominations have closed, the ballot will open on today.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The current nominees are:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   Chair:
> > > > > >     o Elana Broitman
> > > > > >     o Rob Hall
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   Secretary:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   Treasurer:
> > > > > >     o Paul Westley
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   CTO:
> > > > > >     o Rick Wesson
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since Mr Berryhill did not accept the nomination for Secretary I would
> > > > > > like to suggest that we have Elana and Rob run for Secretary also.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > remember each seat must get at least 51% of the vote to win.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -rick
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
>