Re: [wg-d] Overview

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Mon, Oct 18, 1999 at 08:13:16AM -0700, Bret Fausett wrote:
> > 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.

And even at that, rather obscure.

> 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.

I also share it, of course, as did Michael Froomkin and David
Johnson -- both people who have significant real experience with RRs.

As David Johnson pointed out, the *fundamental* purpose of RRs is to
serialize discussion, which is directly contrary to the greatest
strength of email.  

> 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?

You are at the discretion of the chairs with Roberts Rules, as well.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain