Re: [IFWP] Constituency record-keeping

[Nigel <nigel@roberts.co.uk>]

Not all EU nationals have identity cards, of course.

But certainly those of us who are coming from outside of
the Schengen area will have our passports with us.

Nigel.

Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
> 
> Ellen,
> 
> In message <v01540b05b36d2fe60eef@[204.188.254.54]>, Ellen Rony writes:
> 
> > How will the constituency meetings in Berlin be run?  What form of
> > record will be kept of any consensus decisions or compromises, and
> > how they were determined, among competing proposals.
> 
> Having participated in the Monterrey DNSO meeting, I know one thing,
> you can under *NO CIRCUMSTANCES* let The K*nt keep minutes, again.
> 
> > I think it is very important that these things be detailed in the
> > constituency meetings--even a tape recording (which I would be
> > willing to transcribe for a fee)--because otherwise, controversial
> > issues come back and haunt us, as people offer different ex post
> > facto interpretations.  We have seen that pattern again and again.
> 
> The answer to this is "Roberts' Rules of Order", modified.
> 
> Everone speaks about them, nobody actually read them, even fewer (!)
> know what's in there.
> 
> I only say, Web Search engine. I have an abbreviated PDF version on
> line which I can send to someone who can post them for download, my
> line will not tolerate it.
> 
> Firstly you need Chairs who know what they are doing with regards to
> RRoO. Then you need detailed agendas (and John, I know, the correct
> Latin would be agendae).
> 
> Then you go through each agenda item, asking for proposals.
> 
> I'd modify the RRoO slightly by collecting all proposals, ordering
> them with regards to content, in the sense that one discusses the
> "strongest" proposal first,
> 
> For EXAMPLE with regards to membership in the Non-Commercial
> Consituency:
> 
>         a) Entities institutions or organisations engaged in
>         activities for no financial gain to their members
> 
>         b) Entities institutions or organisations engaged in
>         activities for no financial gain to their members AND
>         organizations acting on behalf of entities institutions or
>         organisations engaged in activities for financial gain to
>         their proprietors
> 
> b) would include a) but a) would not exclude b), so you would discuss
> b) first and if accepted a) would fall away.
> 
> If it's difficult, vote on the order, without discussion.
> 
> The proposer gets to motivate the proposal and to make a final
> comment after the close of the discussion.
> 
> Anyone wishing the floor can do so only once (slight modification of
> the Rules, which say "only once as long as someone who hasn't spoken
> yet wants the floor).
> 
> Time limit the contributions, 1 minute, 2 minutes, 5 minutes,
> whatever. Let everyone have their say, as long as it is remotely on
> topic.
> 
> Once the discussion is over vote on the proposal. If successful, all
> the "lesser" ones will fall away.
> 
> Votes. There are several ways of doing it.
> 
> My preferred way would be to humm. But then I could send my grand aunt
> and her whole retirement home, less the asthmatics.
> 
> In meetings where each delegate is in fact delegated (or elected,
> representative or whatever) you can, on registration hand them a
> coloured voting card. On show of hands votes they raise the
> card. Allows for stand-ins/proxies.
> 
> It is standard practice in German politcal conventions by the way.
> 
> For Berlin I would suggest at registration, identities are documented,
> (all foreigners will have their passports, all EU nationals have their
> national ID cards). They list what meeting they will attend so the
> organisers can produce lists. On admission to the meeting they are
> checked against the list (or added to it, for late arrivals who must
> register first, though) and a "voters' roll" is produced, one copy for
> each vote with columns "In Favour" "Against" "Abstain".
> 
> Once the vote is called, call the names individually (once) and tick.
> 
> Once done, counting is simple.  Then without further ado you move to
> the next item on the agenda.
> 
> Now I know that this sounds bureaucratic, but the chaos on the
> previous meetings is one of the reasons we are in such a mess.
> 
> The beauty of this is that you don't really have to minute the
> individual contributions. They will be taped and video'd anyway.
> 
> But you will have a record to send to ICANN and them ambulance chasers
> who will sort it out in court later anyway.
> 
> greetings, el