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

[Paul Goldstone <paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bob,

I can understand why it would be frustrating for you that there is 
little member participation on this topic.  If you don't mind me 
saying, I think the lack of plebiscite (thank you dictionary.com!) is 
for reasons such as the use of the word plebiscite. ;)

The concept of domain tasting is not a complicated one, and I believe 
that most members understand it.  However, the current domain tasting 
motion (and process for the motion) is confusing to me and possibly to 
other members too, especially those who do not use English as their 
first language.

I have a lot of respect and appreciation for you and others who are in 
the forefront of the constituency, but would like to suggest that this 
motion be re-worded so that everyone can understand it and participate.

Regards,

~Paul
:DomainIt


At 12:35 PM 11/14/2007, Robert F. Connelly wrote:

>At 10:22 AM 11/14/2007 Wednesday  -0700, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>>Bob, you need one endorsement. I don't feel comfortable endorsing a motion that I will be taking as unfriendly.
>
>Dear Tim:  I can understand that.  I was uncomfortable when I realized that I had endorsed your modified motion, I had not realized (at that moment) that removing the reference to a vote (with "X" number of members voting) had left us with a text which referenced a lack of Supermajority when no vote was anticipated by your amended motion.
>
>I am equally uncomfortable being "unfriendly" with you and your well crafted motions.  It is the lack of backup of a plebiscite of our members which I find unstasteful, friend.  
>
>Cordially, BobC
>
>
>
>>Tim