Re: [wg-d] Overview

["Bret A. Fausett" <baf@fausett.com>]

> 4.6 Real-Time Work
> Why should they be governed by Robertīs Rules? To my understanding Robert
> Rules is something so complicated that only a few poeple in the US know
> them properly. And they are completely unknown to the rest of the world.
> Why must we then adopt something that complicated? Canīt we find any
> simpler way of working?

Just to recap and pose a new question...

There was a fair amount of discussion of Robert's Rule early in our
dialogue here. Although some proponents wanted to port Robert's Rules to
the online world in its entirety, most of the pro-RR comments seemed to be
asking for some simple way of making and seconding motions, moving
discussions to a close, and polling members on what they favored. Mark
Langston made a pass through RR and listed several kinds of motions that
would help our online discussions. That's what you now see in draft 1: a
very, very light version of Robert's Rules.

For live meetings, it seemed natural to put Robert's Rules into place in
toto, because it was relatively well known (for rules of parliamentary
procedure) and was the standard that ICANN itself had adopted for its
meetings and those of the DNSO Names Council.

In reviewing the draft ICANN Bylaw changes now out for public comment,
however, I note that ICANN proposes to delete the language (Article V,
Section 24) that adopted Robert's Rules. The staff comment reads: "ROBERTS
RULES LANGUAGE DELETED; EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN THIS WAS A BAD IDEA THAT
SHOULD BE DISCARDED."
See, http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws-amend-redline-8oct99.htm

Eva and Jon seem to share that sentiment.

ICANN has not proposed any new language on how meetings should be
governed. If we too drop Robert's Rules for live meetings, is there a
better alternative to put in its place? In the absence of a better
alternative, I think you're at the discretion of the Co-Chairs. Is that
acceptable? Or is Robert's Rules better than nothing?

       -- Bret