ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[registrars]


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

RE: [registrars] Proposed ballot on Constituency statement to GNSO regarding Domain Tasting.

  • To: Registrars Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed ballot on Constituency statement to GNSO regarding Domain Tasting.
  • From: "Robert F. Connelly" <BobC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:53:45 -0800
  • List-id: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<html>
<body>
At 04:54 AM 11/29/2007 Thursday&nbsp; -0700, Tim Ruiz wrote:<br><br>
Dear Tim, Ross and Rob:<br><br>
I have a house full of guests just now, Mary's daughter Nancy, my
daughter Starr, son Bill and his wife, Bernadine (and their dog
Wiley).&nbsp; Son Bob, his wife and son, are due in two hours.&nbsp;
Notwithstanding my personal situation this week, I have tried to comply
with the time line given in our Rules of Procedure.<br><br>
Thank you both for your comments.&nbsp; They were not unexpected.&nbsp;
Let me answer them in order.<br><br>
Rob, I fully agree that the proposed ballot I sent to Excom was
meaningless unless the voting member had a copy of Tim's motion close at
hand.&nbsp;&nbsp; I had asked Tim to repost his motion in its final form
for you to see when trying to decipher my proposed ballot.&nbsp; Tim did
not do so, so I crafted a new ballot which included Tim's original
motion.<br><br>
I had wished that I could have taken the much simpler approach of giving
a link to a web site, but, as you know, we don't have a working site just
now.<br><br>
Ross, yes, it's quite a complicated ballot.&nbsp; A link to the motion
would have been far better.&nbsp; Our &quot;Founding Fathers (and
Mother)&quot; dictated how these matters are to be handled.&nbsp; It was
my desire to set forth the ballot in accordance with the Rules of
Procedure.<br><br>
Tim, let me quote you:<br><br>
Bob, as I said, since I took your amendment as not friendly I think
the<br>
ballot should look more like what I have below. Otherwise, what's
the<br>
point of having taking it as not friendly since you are basically<br>
getting to take the vote anyway?<br><br>
The Main Motion:<br><br>
[text of main motion goes here]<br><br>
Proposed alternate motion (will require another vote if
accepted):<br><br>
end quote:<br><br>
Tim, I don't see it that way.&nbsp; Here is what the Rules of Procedure
state as follows:<br><br>
9. <font color="#FF0000">The ballot</font> will allow for a vote on each
of:&nbsp; <br>
a. the original motion; and b. any unfriendly amendments (as deemed by
the proponent). <br><br>
end quote:<br><br>
To me, it seems clear that there is to be just one ballot.&nbsp; The noun
is &quot;ballot&quot; not&nbsp; &quot;ballots&quot;.&nbsp; <br><br>
I'd rather not delay the vote any further.&nbsp; I have closely examined
the time line and the 28th was the earliest date that I could publish the
ballot. That is why I vetted a draft before Excom on the
27th.&nbsp;&nbsp; Mary's Memorial Service is in three hours, so I'll not
be able to resolve these matters today.&nbsp; I believe the ballot,
though complex, complies with the Rules of Procedure and Excom did not
give me guidance when asked on the 27th.<br><br>
Cordially, BobC<br><br>
</body>
</html>





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