Re: [wg-d] Robert's Rules

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

On 9 August 1999, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> wrote:


>On Mon, Aug 09, 1999 at 08:46:04AM -0700, Mark C.  Langston said, in
>yet another ankle-biting antagonistic missive:

Kent, I'm very sorry that you view information-seeking questions
as antagonistic and ankle-biting.  Cheap laughs from insulting
attribution lines won't get you anywhere.

Despite this childish taunt, I'll respond to you as an adult:


>> Why, if all of these things have already been discussed in such great
>> detail, are there WGs formed around them?  And why do you insist on
>> participating if the discussions have already been held and the
>> decisions already made?
>
>Recall that Karl said that those who favored "rough consensus" were
>"fuzzy" thinkers, enamored of "new-age" ideas.  I am responding to
>such rhetoric -- the interest in "rough consensus" is based on a
>large body of discussion by serious people, not "newage fuzzy
>thinking".  

Indeed.  However, this WG was formed to decide these issues, not
to argue whether or not the issue had already been decided.


>
>In general, it's important to realize that there is a *great* deal of
>"legislative history" in these debates.  There have been very
>detailed proposals for all these matters, but when the ICANN board
>put in the provisions for the DNSO in the bylaws, most of that detail
>was thrown away. 

Would you please provide some URIs that point to this body of history,
that we may all read it?


>
>Some people seem to think we can simply ignore that legislative
>history, and even more, simply ignore the bylaws, as in the proposals
>that the NC should be a simple rubber-stamp for an all-powerful GA.

I agree that there are bylaws being ignored.  I don't agree that 
empowering the GA ignores them, however.

-- 
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