ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[registrars]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [registrars] RE: Call for Constituency statements on Whois tf 1/2 recommendations

  • To: Registrars Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: Call for Constituency statements on Whois tf 1/2 recommendations
  • From: "Robert F. Connelly" <BobC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:23:10 -0800
  • In-reply-to: <091a01c4ffe1$8090bc30$102c12ac@jomax.paholdings.com>
  • References: <6.2.0.14.2.20050120205206.039c4dc0@pop3.loadmail.com> <091a01c4ffe1$8090bc30$102c12ac@jomax.paholdings.com>
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<html>
<body>
At 09:49 AM 1/21/05, Tim Ruiz wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#000080">I have seen no one, except you,
object to considering the 14-day discussion period as completed on the
23<sup>rd</sup> as I proposed. Tom?s suggested changes were accepted and
posted on the 20<sup>th</sup>. So if you want to give it four days, then
I won?t call for a vote until the 24<sup>th</sup>. That?s not quite in
line with Rules either and if you still object I will just back them
out.</font></blockquote><br>
Dear Tim:&nbsp; It is in the normal state of affairs that, in the absence
of a Parliamentarian, it is the Secretary who is burdened with the
responsibility to assure that our actions comply with appropriate rules
and by-laws.&nbsp; I accept that role, though I try to wield that
&quot;stick&quot; with patience and good will.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#000080">&nbsp;<br>
We could also invoke I.11 of the Rules of Procedure and have a 5 or 6 day
voting period. The exceptional circumstance is that our Task Force Reps
need a statement by January 31.</font></blockquote><br>
Tim, we still have comments coming in.&nbsp; Jordyn's are thoughtful and,
to me, persuasive.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#000080">&nbsp;<br>
Regarding unfriendly amendments, you don?t quite have that correct. Our
Rules of Procedures cover that in section I.10. So if the motion gets an
unfriendly amendment it will simply be included in the ballot.</font>
</blockquote><br>
Thank you, Tim, that is an interesting point.&nbsp; Certainly it fllys in
the face of the normal processing of amendments to the &quot;main
motion&quot; according to Robert's Rules of Order.&nbsp; But Robert's
gives us the latitude to use alternate processes.<br><br>
Any unfriendly amendment can, indeed, by a part of the ballot.<br><br>
Cordially, BobC<br><br>
</body>
</html>
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>