<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Proposed Motion for draft Final Report on Whois and Voting in LA
Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
> Ross, are you arguing that it is appropriate to vote on your motion that
> recommends an option (removing contract provisions) not considered by
> the TF or WG, yet it is not appropriate to vote on a motion that
> recommends further factfinding as suggested by the WG and the GAC?
I apologize if I have confused you Mike. Hopefully I can clarify. I've
objected to the motion put forward by the BC on the basis that it
diverts us from the process specified in the PDP.
The motion I've put forward makes no such error and sets forth a plan of
action in response to the likely condition that the Council does not
agree on a path forward. If there is a path forward, I will withdraw the
motion. If there is no path forward, I would like to vote on it.
> I object to your motion on the grounds that such an option was not
> discussed by the TF or WG, is not mentioned in either report, and
> therefore has not been presented as an option for consideration by
> Council at this time. At minimum Council needs guidance as to likely
> impacts from implementation of such an option, before we reasonably can
> consider it.
I'm sure Avri will rule on this in due time but I will note that there
is no procedural or bylaws requirement for the Council to refer to the
PDP in the event that they wish to communicate a non-binding advisory to
the Board. As such, I'm not really sure how this objection is itself in
order.
To the extent that anyone disagrees with the proposal I've made, I would
strongly encourage you to vote against it, or at least propose an
amendment that you might consider voting for.
Mike Rodenbaugh
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ross Rader
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 12:21 PM
To: Avri Doria
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Motion for draft Final Report on Whois
and Voting in LA
Avri Doria wrote:
I see no basis for refusing the motion given the end process we have
adopted.
I am not sure that I understand this. I am certain that the bylaws are
very clear on what our next steps should be, despite the twisted path we
have taken to get here. We cannot simply take a report and sit on it
while we decide to gather further information. The proposition is
fundamentally inconsistent with the path that the bylaws permit.
The Council does have considerable leeway in terms of what our response
to the vote is. For instance, if the report does not have the support of
the Council, it is perfectly reasonable for us to consider further study
of the issue in an attempt to find a path forward. It is equally
reasonable for us to consider a request of the board to sunset Whois
provisions in the current contract in the event that we cannot find a
path forward. But, we do not have this same leeway in terms of what our
action in response to the receipt of this report is. We must vote on it
and send the results of that vote to the Board.
This is the basis upon which I'm requesting that this motion, as worded,
be ruled out of order.
--
Regards,
Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
Tucows Inc.
http://www.domaindirect.com
t. 416.538.5492
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|