Dean,
In the first place a point of order under Roberts Rules is not
a point of order unless accepted by the chair.
In the second place it is not a point of order at all. A point of
order relates purely to procedural items. This is a point of information,
which is a move in a debate.
In the third place there are no rules of order here. The IETF
process does not use Roberts rules or recognize points of order. If
you want to raise a point of order there has to first be rules of order
on which a point may be raised.
Chris can raise the issue in last call. And then the chairs
decide on what the consensus of the group is and write a little note
to answer the various objections raised.
Phill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of Dean
Anderson
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 10:24 AM
To: Andrew Newton
Cc: Chris Haynes; IETF MARID WG
Subject: Re: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG
Charter
A point of order is a process check. The process is not
supposed to move
forward until the technical issues are solved. If the technical issues
aren't solved, then the process shouldn't move forward until
they are.
So, a technical opinion that the technical problems aren't solved can
certainly form the basis for a process question.
I submit that your next step as working group chair is to obtain a
technical consensus on the question raised by Mr. Haynes. If
he is right,
then the process shouldn't move forward yet.
However, I'd say he has raised a good point. Though, I'd say
my 9 or 10
points are also significant show-stopper problems.
--Dean
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Andrew Newton wrote:
On Aug 18, 2004, at 6:32 AM, Chris Haynes wrote:
May I humbly raise a point of order to the Chair concerning the
projected output
of the MARID WG?
I'm not sure there is much humility in raising a point of order
premised on your opinion of the technical proposal and not on the
process for how this group is conducting its work.
Or perhaps you and I have a different idea for the meaning
of point of
order.
You are certainly free to express your technical opinion regarding
Sender ID, but let's not start using process issues to win
technical
arguments.
BTW, your technical objections to Sender ID are noted.
-andy