<<<
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 -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). Son Bob, his wife and son, are due in two hours.
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. They were not unexpected.
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. I had asked Tim to repost his motion in its final form
for you to see when trying to decipher my proposed ballot. 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. A link to the motion
would have been far better. Our "Founding Fathers (and
Mother)" dictated how these matters are to be handled. 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. 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: <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. The noun
is "ballot" not "ballots". <br><br>
I'd rather not delay the vote any further. 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. Mary's Memorial Service is in three hours, so I'll not
be able to resolve these matters today. 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
>>>
|