RE: [registrars] Discussion of Motion to adopt Tasting Position Statement [Tim Ruiz's motion].
At 10:22 AM 11/14/2007 Wednesday -0700, Tim Ruiz wrote:
Bob, you need one endorsement. I don't feel comfortable endorsing a motion that I will be taking as unfriendly.
Dear Tim: I can understand that. I was uncomfortable when I realized that I had endorsed your modified motion, I had not realized (at that moment) that removing the reference to a vote (with "X" number of members voting) had left us with a text which referenced a lack of Supermajority when no vote was anticipated by your amended motion. I am equally uncomfortable being "unfriendly" with you and your well crafted motions. It is the lack of backup of a plebiscite of our members which I find unstasteful, friend. Cordially, BobC
Tim
On 14-Nov-07, at 12:35 PM, Robert F. Connelly wrote:
I am equally uncomfortable
I'm pretty uncomfortable with the fact that we're not even close to getting the Council a statement concerning the preferences of registrars related to the tasting issue. I'm pretty uncomfortable with the fact that its pretty likely that all of this parliamentary back and forth is totally confusing to most of our members and therefore likely to alienate someone not entirely familiar with our processes. I'm pretty uncomfortable with the fact that it continues to be the case that it takes us way to long to make really simple decisions. Can we just cut to the chase and find someone to help us write this document? Are there any volunteers? Jothan - is this work that you can help us with? Jeff? Anyone? Ross Rader Director, Retail Services t. 416.538.5492 c. 416.828.8783 http://www.domaindirect.com "To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow." - Erik Nupponen
RC Members: I have received a number of questions on our process for a motion. Here is a link to the RC Rules of Procedure governing motions: http://www.icannregistrars.org/Registrar_Constituency_Rules_of_Procedure Here's where we are: We have been asked by the GNSO to provide a constituency statement on the tasting issue. Tim has offered a motion for such a statement. His motion has received the required three endorsements (Tom, Adrian & Bob). If Bob wants to revoke his endorsement, I would be happy to endorse the motion for consideration by the RC. Bob has offered an amendment to the motion. Tim had the option of accepting the amendment as friendly and it would have become part of the motion. As Tim has rejected the amendment, it is considered unfriendly. Bob's amendment now requires one endorsement in order to be on the ballot with the underlying motion. I will restart the minimum fourteen day discussion period as of today. At any point during this period, a member may offer any other amendment to Tim. If he accepts the amendment, it would become part of the underlying motion. Tim has stated that he is open to friendly amendments. I suggest that those of you who want to propose some changes work directly with Tim. At some point after the fourteen days, Bob will create and publish a draft ballot for members to review. The ballot will contain the motion, as well as any unfriendly amendments that receive the required endorsement from a second member. I hope that this helps to clarify the process, so that we can turn to the substance of the proposal. It would be great if we could have a statement that reflects a consensus of the RC. Please keep in mind that we all individually will have the opportunity to offer our own comments on the issue during the public comment period. Thanks. Jon
Bob, I can understand why it would be frustrating for you that there is little member participation on this topic. If you don't mind me saying, I think the lack of plebiscite (thank you dictionary.com!) is for reasons such as the use of the word plebiscite. ;) The concept of domain tasting is not a complicated one, and I believe that most members understand it. However, the current domain tasting motion (and process for the motion) is confusing to me and possibly to other members too, especially those who do not use English as their first language. I have a lot of respect and appreciation for you and others who are in the forefront of the constituency, but would like to suggest that this motion be re-worded so that everyone can understand it and participate. Regards, ~Paul :DomainIt At 12:35 PM 11/14/2007, Robert F. Connelly wrote:
At 10:22 AM 11/14/2007 Wednesday -0700, Tim Ruiz wrote:
Bob, you need one endorsement. I don't feel comfortable endorsing a motion that I will be taking as unfriendly.
Dear Tim: I can understand that. I was uncomfortable when I realized that I had endorsed your modified motion, I had not realized (at that moment) that removing the reference to a vote (with "X" number of members voting) had left us with a text which referenced a lack of Supermajority when no vote was anticipated by your amended motion.
I am equally uncomfortable being "unfriendly" with you and your well crafted motions. It is the lack of backup of a plebiscite of our members which I find unstasteful, friend.
Cordially, BobC
Tim
participants (4)
-
Nevett, Jonathon -
Paul Goldstone -
Robert F. Connelly -
Ross Rader