[Rt4-whois] Not crazy about Robert's Rules

[Smith, Bill]

I suspect I haven't been clear in my suggestion that we employ Robert's Rules. I am *not* suggesting that we adhere to them rigidly but rather use them to guide us and provide baseline answers to questions like is an abstention a vote?

I am in favor of using "traditional ICANN" rules, especially as they relate to working together toward a common goal through consensus building. Traditional "voting" is, in my opinion, the antithesis of consensus. While it is possible to  reach common ground through voting mechanisms, they are not designed to encourage it.

If we're to reach consensus on issues, we need to define them, understand them, and seek solutions that are "agreeable" (or at least not objectionable) to all - using processes/rules that are documented and well-understood.

On Nov 10, 2010, at 5:23 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:

> Hi Wilifried and All,
> I am not crazy about Robert's Rules. Please know that I have used them for many, many years, and like anything else, they are a tool and a weapon in the hands of people who are expert with them. You can use Robert's Rules to encourage discussion, and to shut it down. I find them a version of crowd control -- which is very necessary in a large legislative  body.
> 
> But we are not a large legislative body. We are a small, collegial, expert group. In that case, traditional ICANN rules would seem to be in order -- they are not documented, not formal, but very well known.  They require listening carefully to the comments of the others in the group, working through the issues together, and trying to arrive at a consensus (or agreement) that everyone feels is somewhat reasonable. 
> 
> No one "wins," in my experience, in the ICANN committee arena. It is a give and take. 
> 
> And I really like the voting rules circulated yesterday by Lynn, Sharon and Bill. I think they encapsulate important rules, a limited set, and give us a basic framework. Truly, I think that is all we will need.
> 
> Dear All,
> Sending this message in advance of our conference call tomorrow.
> Bill Smith, Sharon Lemon and I took the action item on our last call to propose a voting agreement for the group.
> 
> Different views and discussion are welcomed.  This is offered in the interest of making our call tomorrow as productive as possible.  Please note that ICANN values of consensus and transparency have been considered in this proposal. Here it is:
> 
> Proposed Whois RT Voting Agreement
> 
> 1) A quorum of 50% of RT members is required to conduct a vote.
> 
> 2) A winning vote requires 75% approval or support. 
> 
> 3) Each RT member has one vote; the ICANN CEO (or his alternate) has one vote; all other supporting ICANN staff will not have voting privileges.
> 
> 4) Straw polls are permitted and do not prevent or restrict a final vote.
> 
> 5) RT members may authorize another RT member to vote in proxy.
> 
> 6) Each RT member may designate an alternate to attend meetings either remotely or in person.
> However, the alternate will not have voting privileges, with the exception of the ICANN CEO alternate.
> 
> 7) Meetings will be recorded and available for RT members who are unable to attend.
> 
> 8) Voting requests will be communicated in writing via email with a minimum of 3 business days notice to respond.
> 
> 9) Vote responses may be submitted via email or by verbal response on conference call meetings.
> 
> 10) Each RT member will be identified with their vote.
> 
> Kathy Kleiman
> Director of Policy
> .ORG The Public Interest Registry
> Direct: +1 703 889-5756  Mobile: +1 703 371-6846
> 
> Visit us online!
> Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz!
> Find us on Facebook | dotorg
> See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr
> See our video library on YouTube
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
> Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 7:40 AM
> To: Emily Taylor
> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Role of Chair and Vice-Chair for Whois Review Team
> 
> Emily Taylor wrote:
> 
>> Dear Lynn, Bill and Sharon,
>> 
>> Thanks for your work on the role of Chair and Vice-Chair.  I have a
>> couple of queries/suggestions, which I hope we can pick up in today's call:
>> 
>> I agree that the Chair/Vice Chair should play a neutral role, and I see
>> the purpose to ensure that voices are heard, themes summarised and a way
>> through is formulated which takes into account all relevant, legitimate
>> interests.  Reviewing the exchanges on this list, I think this group is
>> going to have to work hard to listen and take account of others' views -
>> if we can crack this, we should be OK!
>> 
>> 
>> My query is this:  given that we have all been put forward for this team
>> on the basis of our experience, what do you think should happen when the
>> Chair/Vice-Chair wants to put forward their own personal view.  Do they
>> step out of the role for the time being?  Do they just not do that?
> 
> 
> I have submitted my take on this aspect already and Bill (iirc) replied
> that this is covered by Robert's Rules of Order.
> 
> Beinf illiterate wrt this beast, I have to believe this until I find the
> time to read up on this stuff.
> 
>> Kind regards
>> 
>> Emily
> 
> Wilfried.
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois