[Rt4-whois] Not crazy about Robert's Rules
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
Wed Nov 10 13:56:00 UTC 2010
lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com wrote:
> Yes! strongly agree with you Emily
+1 from my end.
Wilfried
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Not crazy about Robert's Rules
> From: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk
> <mailto:emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk>>
> Date: Wed, November 10, 2010 8:49 am
> To: "Kim G. von Arx" <kim at vonarx.ca <mailto:kim at vonarx.ca>>
> Cc: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at <mailto:Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at>,
> rt4-whois at icann.org <mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>
>
> Dear all
>
> Sounds like we are converging towards a pragmatic approach here, ie
> no-one wants to place procedure before substance (I'm sure we all
> bear the scars of other committees which become process obsessed!),
> we want to work in an informal way, towards consensus, and use
> existing frameworks for non-binding guidance if and when we get stuck.
>
> Best,
>
> Emily
>
> PS I also missed the link to the Wiki. Thanks for the reminder.
>
>
> On 10 Nov 2010, at 13:46, Kim G. von Arx wrote:
>
>> Dear All:
>>
>> I tend to agree with Kathy. I've also used Robert's Rules and, as
>> I had suggested a while back, Wainberg's Rules, for many years and
>> both are complex and require some expertise by the Chair and/or
>> moderator to properly use them. If we were to adopt formal rules,
>> I would still suggest that Wainberg's are more appropriate than
>> Robert's rules.
>>
>> Having said that, I don't' want to waste any time on discussing
>> which of those we should use and simply propose that we use the
>> guidelines already established by various team members and the
>> ICANN conventions and, if we encounter an issue which has not been
>> dealt with in either instances, we can consult Robert's or
>> Wainberg's rules to find an appropriate path.
>>
>> Kim
>>
>>
>> On 10 Nov 2010, at 08:23, 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>
>>> [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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org>
>>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>> Rt4-whois mailing list
>>
>>> Rt4-whois at icann.org <mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org>
>>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>>
>>
>
> Emily Taylor Consultant (Internet Law and Governance)
> 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
> telephone: * 01865 582 811* mobile: * 07540 049 322*
> emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk <mailto:emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk>
> www.etlaw.co.uk <http://www.etlaw.co.uk>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org <mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
More information about the Rt4-whois
mailing list