Re: [wg-c] Voting CANNOT happen yet!

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On 21 July 1999, "Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com> wrote:

>Pardon my shouting.
>
>I CANNOT VOTE FOR A CHAIR IF I DO NOT KNOW WHAT
>THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THAT CHAIR ARE!
>
>Please don't tell me to look at IETF. I know how IETF works. That
>doesn't mean we're working that way. It doesn't mean we're not
>working that way.
>
>So, I'd be happy to vote for a chair, if someone would just codify
>WHAT THAT CHAIR DOES.

I agree completely.  My posting of voting procedures was meant more to
keep the co-chair election from falling through the cracks and being
forgotten than anything else.

Since we aren't the IETF, and nobody's come forth with any ICANN,
DNSO, or pNC document that outlines the duties and responsibilities of
the chair, perhaps we should work together to define the role of the
chair.

Here are some suggestions:

1) The chair shall be responsible for announcing the business before
the working group, and the order in which it will be acted upon.  NOTE:
This should NOT be construed to mean that the chair DECIDES the business
or order thereof.

2) To put to the vote questions so moved.  NOTE:  This should NOT be
constued to mean that the chair DETERMINES consensus.  The chair 
officially announces both the call for the vote, and the results thereof.

3) The chair may vote, except in matters that concern the chair only, or
in matters that compliment or condemn the chair with others, in which case
the vote is to be put by the co-chair, or failing that under this rule, the
vote shall be put by the individual calling the vote.

4) The chair cannot close debate except by order of the assembly, nor can 
the chair prevent the making of legitimate motions by ignoring them or 
hurrying though the proceedings.  If the chair is to call a vote while a 
member is attempting to address the chair, the vote is null and void, and
the member must be recognized.

and here, I'll quote directly from Robert's Rules:

  "The chairman sometimes calls a member to the chair and takes part in
  the debate. This should rarely be done, and nothing can justify it in
  a case where much feeling is shown and there is a liability to
  difficulty in preserving order. If the chairman has even the
  appearance of being a partisan, he loses much of his ability to
  control those who are on the opposite side of the question. There is
  nothing to justify the unfortunate habit some chairmen have of
  constantly speaking on questions before the assembly, even
  interrupting the member who has the floor. One who expects to take an
  active part in debate should never accept the chair, or at least
  should not resume the chair, after having made his speech, until after
  the pending question is disposed of. The presiding officer of a large
  assembly should never be chosen for any reason except his ability to
  preside."  
  Robert's Rules of Order, Revised (1996).  Art. X, Section 58., para. 8.
  


...it would also do to bear in mind:

  "The great purpose of all rules and forms is to subserve the will of
   the assembly rather than to restrain it; to facilitate, and not to
   obstruct, the expression of their deliberative sense."

Inasmuch as I believe the above are necessary, I also believe they
meet this criterion.

-- 
Mark C. Langston	     			Let your voice be heard:
mark@bitshift.org				     http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin					    http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA					     http://www.dnso.org