Re: [wg-d] Robert's Rules

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> I share your concern for fairness, but Robert's Rules seem a little too
> heavy for WGs. Let me explain.
> 
> Working Groups are, more than anything else, drafting committees for
> specific issues.

I disagree at the most fundamental level.

Working groups are the first focus for the development of ideas and
policy.

They are *not* mere drafting committees.  That may be your concept, but it
is certainly not mine.

And I must ask, if you believe that they are mere "drafting committees"
than where is the policy of the DNSO created and worked out?  Certainly
not the names council.

> Now at the beginning they are highly political, but they
> will not be at the end. If we use procedures that are too heavy, we run the
> risk of making them useless.

As I described the procedures need not be heavy.  The reputation of
heavyness is simply a leftover from watching too many legislatures.

The price of not having any procedure, i.e. the "consensus" model is
chaos, ambiguous decisions, and a never ending belief that the product is
the result of manipulation.

 
> Also, Robert's Rules can be used to slow down a process when somebody does
> not want anything to happen. Anybody can just ammend aproposal (only needs
> somebody to second) and ask for a vote. This can go on forever.

Yes process can slow things down, but not forever.  It will become clear
to the GA that a working group is failing.  Then the GA will take the
matter up itself and let the failing working group simply wither.

One must not make the mistake of equating "speed" with "progress".  A
procedure which creates fast, but bad results is worse than a process that
takes more time but produces a better thought through and more broadly
accepted answer.

Consensus based systems indeed can "make the trains run on time", but at a
tremendous price - a loss of confidence in the process and its result. 
 
> I think that we need to operate on a much simpler scheme. With simple rules. 

I disagree.

"Simple rules" is often a synonym for dictatorial chairmen, fabrication of
consensus, lack of accountability, and the eventual ridicule of both the
institution and its decisions.

And I might add that Robert's Rules are the product of hundreds of 
years of experience.  And that is experience by people who are just as
concerned as we are about delay.  Perhaps you have never been in a
well run Roberts Rules meeting -- they often proceed at a lightning
pace.

Indeed well ruled meetings often run faster than rule-less based meetings
because there is no need to constantly invent ad hoc answers and the
meeting attendees know how to get the job done.

Any simplier and the process can become, and often does become, a farce.


> Until we decide if WGs are open to anybody or they have a balanced
> membership from the constituencies and the General Assembly, it might be
> too early to decide how they will vote.

This is the Working Group on Process.  It is not too early to figure out
how to make things work.

It is indeed interesting to me that you suggest that it is too early to
decide whether to have voting in working groups, yet at the same time
working groups have made decisions about the imposition of WIPO rules.

I would submit that your argument is reversed.  The proper order is that
no WG and no part of the DNSO ought to be making substantive decisions of
any kind until we have a fair process.


> We could leave this discussion for a little later, after we discuss if WGs
> are open to anybody or do they have a balanced membership?

The WG's are to be open to anybody.  I find even the suggestion that they be
closed to be utterly repugnant.


> The product of WGs is sent to the Names Council

No, we, this working group, shall decide whether that is true.

It is my belief that the product should go to the General Assembly which
then shall than have the responsibilty to accept, reject, or amend working
group proposals.  In addition, the GA may itself originate proposals
without the benefit of a working group.

On one hand you reject the minimal formality of Roberts Rules, and yet
here you are imposing highly restrictive limitations on membership,
relegating working groups to mere drafting bodies, and emasculating the
General Assembly.

> who recommends policy to
> the Board.

The Names Council shall further only such things to the board as are
approved by the General Assembly.  That is also a topic for us to
discuss here in this working group.

> If the constituencies do not agree with the result

The constituencies do not participate at all.  It is the Names Council
as a body and the General Assembly as a body with which we are
concerned.


>, then the
> policy will be either not sent or modified. It is much better that the WGs
> produce policy

And how are these WG's to "produce policy" if they are relegated to be
merely, in your own words, "drafting committees"?

You are being inconsistant.  I am much happer with this latter formulation
of yours - that working groups "produce policy".


> that is acceptable to the constituencies, otherwise their
> work will be wasted. That is why I think that it is useles to have WGs in
> which the constituencies do not have an specific weight.

The mere role of "constituencies" is to appoint people to the Names
Council.  After that constituencies are free, like anyone else, to send
people to the General Assembly.

You are elevating "constituencies" to a role not supported in any reading
of the ICANN bylaws.

		--karl--