Bob, perhaps you could propose an amendment to the motion stating what you believe to be the majority view as explained below. I would not accept it as friendly, but then it could at least be voted on separately with the motion itself. Also, if you have a suggested working change to the *supermajority* comment please propose it. My original motion was certainly my own preferred view. However, Jon and others on the ExCom gently pushed back reminding me that there was clearly another view that *many* registrars have regarding tasting. As I reflected on that, and looked back at my meeting notes, the transcripts of the workshops, etc. I realized they were right and I believe the revised motion more accurately captures the RC views. You are right, no previous vote has taken place, and if there is better wording for the motion I am open to it. Best, Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [registrars] Discussion of Motion to adopt Tasting Position Statement. From: "Robert F. Connelly" <BobC@awesome-goo.com> Date: Wed, November 14, 2007 1:29 am To: Registrars Constituency <registrars@gnso.icann.org> At 02:36 PM 11/9/2007 Friday -0700, Tim Ruiz wrote: The Registrars Constituency (RC) has not reached Supermajority support for a particular position on Domain Name Tasting. Below are statements of the views/positions espoused by RC members. Dear Tim: Regarding the second paragraph of your motion, quoted above, there has been no vote, so how could there be a "supermajority", a simple majority or a rejection by a majority? I contest your motion for the simple reason that there has been no attempt to test "a particular position on Domain Name Tasting". On the other hand, please consider the following quotation on this list by Laura Mather of MarkMonitor. http://www.antiphishing.org/reports/DNSPWG_ReportDomainTastingandPhishing.pd... Please refer to the last paragraph of page one, which reads as follows: It is generally perceived that the great majority of domain name tasting is performed by a small number of registrars who exist specifically to amass and maintain tasting portfolios. Typically, these registrars do not offer registration services to the public. end quote: If the above paragraph is correct, and other members have posted comments that the report is fair and objective, then one would expect that a supermajority of our members *could* find a position they can support. Let me quote one member's posting on the "Anti-Phishing Working Group" report: Laura, All kidding aside, I think this was a solid objective report. Good job. Best regards, Tom Barrett EnCirca, Inc end quote: I supported the original draft of Tim's motion, which he vetted before Excom on 8 November, the day before he posted the present motion to the members. It reads, in part, as follows: The position of the Registrars Constituency regarding Domain Name Tasting is stated below. It was approved by the Constituency with a vote in which X ballots were received with X in favor, X not in favor, and X abstentions. The Registrars Constituency (RC) of ICANN's GNSO takes the following position regarding the activity of Domain Name Tasting (Tasting). 1. The RC is in general agreement that Tasting should be curbed if not eliminated altogether: end quote: However, after discussion with others in Excom, Tim emasculated his original excellent motion with the present meaningless wording, "Registrars Constituency (RC) has not reached Supermajority support for a particular position on Domain Name Tasting." How can we reconcile the above with the following?: X ballots were received with X in favor, X not in favor, and X abstentions. It is my strong position that we should support *no* position to GNSO until we have had a proper plebiscite for this issue.