Re: [wg-d] Overview

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Mon, Oct 18, 1999 at 09:42:43AM -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote:
[...]
> 
> Here's my (not unbiased) opinion on this:
> 
> The big reason ICANN wants to do away with RR in live meetings is because
> a)  nobody has taken the time to understand even the rudimentary bits of
>     pariamentary procedure, either as embodied by RR, or in general,
> b)  They have not bothered to implement it properly (e.g., with a
>     parliamentarian;  this is a person that should be present at all live
>     meetings),
> c)  Their lack of understanding has been a public embarassment to them,
> d)  They do not see the value in a formal rule system, even though their
>     current processes cry out for one.
> 
> I believe a) and c) are the biggest reasons.  Nobody can be bothered to
> learn even the simplest rules of order,

ICANN dismisses RRs for the simple reason stated: experience has
shown that they don't work very well in this context. 

However, in fact the *ICANN* public meetings have actually run rather
well -- the public board meeting in Santiago went very well indeed,
from a procedural point of view, and that was due to the fact that
the ICANN Board and Staff had really done their homework, they had a
clear agenda, and knew what issues they were going to have to decide. 
They had assigned presentations to present the options, but the Board
members had clearly given a lot of prior thought and study to the
issues. 

Where things went wrong were in the early NC meetings, where people
tried to follow the formal intricacies of RRs.  And, while there has 
been some experience gained, my impression is that the NC is still 
bogged down in nitpicking over procedure.


IMO, the real difference between the early NC meetings and the Board
meeting was the planning and preparation.

[...]

> What many seem to miss is that "getting on with it" is exactly what's
> causing all the uproar in the first place.  True, the live meetings can
> end up in various shades of disarray when people don't understand RR.
> However, that will change with practice,

It will change with practice anyway.  In fact, WGs are already
improving with practice.  WG-C has got off its venting stage and is
now in the "competing documents" stage, and real progress is being
made. 

In fact, it is my personal opinion that we could have got over that
much sooner if the chairs had in the beginning called for competing
proposals to be put into a final report -- in other words, if the 
emphasis had been on the work items that were to be output, and 
*not* on procedure.  We are not being any more formal in procedure 
than we were at the beginning, but work is getting done -- clear 
proof that it isn't lack of procedure that is causing the problem.

[...]

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