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 Agreement1) 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 KleimanDirector of Policy.ORG The Public Interest RegistryDirect: +1 703 889-5756 Mobile: +1 703 371-6846Visit us online!Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz!Find us on Facebook | dotorgSee the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on FlickrSee our video library on YouTubeCONFIDENTIALITY 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@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnetSent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 7:40 AMTo: Emily TaylorCc: rt4-whois@icann.orgSubject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Role of Chair and Vice-Chair for Whois Review TeamEmily Taylor wrote:Dear Lynn, Bill and Sharon,Thanks for your work on the role of Chair and Vice-Chair. I have acouple 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 seethe purpose to ensure that voices are heard, themes summarised and a waythrough is formulated which takes into account all relevant, legitimateinterests. Reviewing the exchanges on this list, I think this group isgoing 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 teamon the basis of our experience, what do you think should happen when theChair/Vice-Chair wants to put forward their own personal view. Do theystep 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) repliedthat this is covered by Robert's Rules of Order.Beinf illiterate wrt this beast, I have to believe this until I find thetime to read up on this stuff.Kind regardsEmilyWilfried._______________________________________________Rt4-whois mailing listRt4-whois@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois_______________________________________________Rt4-whois mailing listRt4-whois@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322
emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk www.etlaw.co.uk