Re: [wg-d] Overview

[dstein@travel-net.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?

Having experienced both Robert's Rules, Code Morin and chair discretion in 
sensitve meetings, I would have to say  that in the case of problems and or 
contentious issues you are far better of having well-defined rules. Sure there 
is overhead. But thats a relatively small price to pay for removing much of the 
uncertainty. By using rules, you give the chair some tools to work with. The 
only procedural issue then becomes 'has the chair used the tools 
appropriately?"  Without rules, there will always be the question "what 
procedure should the chair have used and did they use it appropriately?" The 
second question can be an incredible time-sink and a serious delaying tactic. 
The expected delays can easily be predicted to exceed the overhead imposed by 
using Robert's Rules.

BTW, I introduce the notion of Code Morin not to promote it as an alternative 
to Robert's Rules.  Just to point out that this is not a new problem and that 
people have been working with parliamentary rules for many years.
> 
>        -- Bret
> 

Dan Steinberg
Synthesis: Law & Technology
synthesis@travel-net.com
613.794.5356


---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Travel-Net Web Mail.
http://www.travel-net.com/