>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 12:04:43 +0100
>From: Nigel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I)
>X-Accept-Language: en
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> Esther Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [IFWP] Constituency record-keeping
>References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Not all EU nationals have identity cards, of course.
>
>But certainly those of us who are coming from outside of
>the Schengen area will have our passports with us.
>
>Nigel.
>
>Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
>>
>> Ellen,
>>
>> In message <v01540b05b36d2fe60eef@[204.188.254.54]>, Ellen Rony writes:
>>
>> > How will the constituency meetings in Berlin be run? What form of
>> > record will be kept of any consensus decisions or compromises, and
>> > how they were determined, among competing proposals.
>>
>> Having participated in the Monterrey DNSO meeting, I know one thing,
>> you can under *NO CIRCUMSTANCES* let The K*nt keep minutes, again.
>>
>> > I think it is very important that these things be detailed in the
>> > constituency meetings--even a tape recording (which I would be
>> > willing to transcribe for a fee)--because otherwise, controversial
>> > issues come back and haunt us, as people offer different ex post
>> > facto interpretations. We have seen that pattern again and again.
>>
>> The answer to this is "Roberts' Rules of Order", modified.
>>
>> Everone speaks about them, nobody actually read them, even fewer (!)
>> know what's in there.
>>
>> I only say, Web Search engine. I have an abbreviated PDF version on
>> line which I can send to someone who can post them for download, my
>> line will not tolerate it.
>>
>> Firstly you need Chairs who know what they are doing with regards to
>> RRoO. Then you need detailed agendas (and John, I know, the correct
>> Latin would be agendae).
>>
>> Then you go through each agenda item, asking for proposals.
>>
>> I'd modify the RRoO slightly by collecting all proposals, ordering
>> them with regards to content, in the sense that one discusses the
>> "strongest" proposal first,
>>
>> For EXAMPLE with regards to membership in the Non-Commercial
>> Consituency:
>>
>> a) Entities institutions or organisations engaged in
>> activities for no financial gain to their members
>>
>> b) Entities institutions or organisations engaged in
>> activities for no financial gain to their members AND
>> organizations acting on behalf of entities institutions or
>> organisations engaged in activities for financial gain to
>> their proprietors
>>
>> b) would include a) but a) would not exclude b), so you would discuss
>> b) first and if accepted a) would fall away.
>>
>> If it's difficult, vote on the order, without discussion.
>>
>> The proposer gets to motivate the proposal and to make a final
>> comment after the close of the discussion.
>>
>> Anyone wishing the floor can do so only once (slight modification of
>> the Rules, which say "only once as long as someone who hasn't spoken
>> yet wants the floor).
>>
>> Time limit the contributions, 1 minute, 2 minutes, 5 minutes,
>> whatever. Let everyone have their say, as long as it is remotely on
>> topic.
>>
>> Once the discussion is over vote on the proposal. If successful, all
>> the "lesser" ones will fall away.
>>
>> Votes. There are several ways of doing it.
>>
>> My preferred way would be to humm. But then I could send my grand aunt
>> and her whole retirement home, less the asthmatics.
>>
>> In meetings where each delegate is in fact delegated (or elected,
>> representative or whatever) you can, on registration hand them a
>> coloured voting card. On show of hands votes they raise the
>> card. Allows for stand-ins/proxies.
>>
>> It is standard practice in German politcal conventions by the way.
>>
>> For Berlin I would suggest at registration, identities are documented,
>> (all foreigners will have their passports, all EU nationals have their
>> national ID cards). They list what meeting they will attend so the
>> organisers can produce lists. On admission to the meeting they are
>> checked against the list (or added to it, for late arrivals who must
>> register first, though) and a "voters' roll" is produced, one copy for
>> each vote with columns "In Favour" "Against" "Abstain".
>>
>> Once the vote is called, call the names individually (once) and tick.
>>
>> Once done, counting is simple. Then without further ado you move to
>> the next item on the agenda.
>>
>> Now I know that this sounds bureaucratic, but the chaos on the
>> previous meetings is one of the reasons we are in such a mess.
>>
>> The beauty of this is that you don't really have to minute the
>> individual contributions. They will be taped and video'd anyway.
>>
>> But you will have a record to send to ICANN and them ambulance chasers
>> who will sort it out in court later anyway.
>>
>> greetings, el
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remember, amateurs built the Ark. Professionals built the Titanic.
