RE: [registrars] Ragistrar Statement friendly amendment

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Ross. I'd hate to see all future motions proposed as *accepting
the attached document* to circumvent the opportunity to offer
amendments.

Tim 

 -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [registrars] Ragistrar Statement friendly amendment
From: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, April 18, 2006 8:59 am
To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Tim Ruiz wrote:

> Ross, I agree for the most part. But I don't think suggested amendments
> need to hold anything up. If the TF reps consider the amendment friedly
> it can simply be incorporated. If not, the unfriendly amendment can be
> included as an option in the vote.

Ahh yes. I completely forgot that there was a process for dealing with 
amendments. In this case, the body of the motion isn't the position 
statement. Robert's Rules would typically prevent an amendment from 
modifying the text of an attached document, in this case, the position 
statement. But I think it would be useful and appropriate to ignore this

for the purpose of this vote (while avoiding setting any precedents). 
This is one of the reasons why its so important for each of us to make 
sure that we get involved in the comment periods as much as our busy 
schedules permit. The voting process isn't a great way of building 
consensus around a document - the rules are designed for forward 
movement, not compromise.

In any event your proposal sounds like a decent way forward under the 
conditions that I outlined above.


-- 

                       -rr








                "Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions.
                                           All life is an experiment.
                            The more experiments you make the better."
                        - Ralph Waldo Emerson


Contact Info:
Ross Rader
Director, Research & Innovation
Tucows Inc.
c. 416.828.8783

Get Started? http://start.tucows.com
My Blogware: http://www.byte.org