RE: [registrars] Discussion of Motion to adopt Tasting Position Statement [Tim Ruiz's motion].

["Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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