ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[registrars]

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

[registrars] The Ballot on Domain Tasting has been sent to Voting Members.

  • To: Registrars Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [registrars] The Ballot on Domain Tasting has been sent to Voting Members.
  • From: "Robert F. Connelly" <BobC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:56:53 -0800
  • List-id: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<html>
<body>
Dear Registrars: The ballot on the motion has been sent to the Voting
Members List.&nbsp; If you are other than the voting member of a dues
paying registrar, you may want to be sure that your voting member
received the ballot.&nbsp; <br><br>
The ballot will remain open until midnight GMT, 11 January 2008.&nbsp; A
second and third ballot will be sent between now and the closing of the
ballot.&nbsp; Voting members may vote several times but any secondary
ballots overwrite the prior ballots.&nbsp; The final results will be open
for all to see.<br><br>
For your convenience, the Main Motion and the Unfriendly Amendment are
posted at the following URL:<br><br>
<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab>&nbsp;
<a href="http://icannregistrars.org/Talk:ICANN_Registrars"; eudora="autourl">
http://icannregistrars.org/Talk:ICANN_Registrars<br><br>
</a>I call your attention to the following &quot;preamble&quot; to the
Main Motion:<br><br>
The Motion: Move that the Registrar Constituency approve the following
statement as Registrar Constituency Statement on Domain Tasting: The
Registrars Constituency (RC)<font color="#FF0000"> has not reached
Supermajority support </font>for a particular position on Domain Name
Tasting. Below are statements of the views/positions espoused by RC
members. <br><br>
end quote:<br><br>
Searching our By-Laws and Rules of Procedure, I do not find a definition
for &quot;Supermajority&quot; nor any reference to a
&quot;Supermajority&quot;.&nbsp; It *is* clear that any amendment to the
By-Laws requires a 66% majority.&nbsp; However, the ICANN By-Laws make
multiple references to Supermajority.<br><br>
Article 16, Additional Definitions states &quot;'Supermajority Vote'
means a vote of more than sixty-six (66) percent of the members present
at a meeting of the applicable body&quot;. <br><br>
Those who drafted the Registrar Constituency By-Laws and Rules of
Procedure were opposed to our earlier use of &quot;straw
ballots&quot;.&nbsp; They insisted that no one promulgate *any* position
to our Constituency that was not supported by a vote taken when a quorum
of voting members was present.&nbsp; I believe that, until our last two
meetings, we have not ever had a quorum of voting members present at a
meeting, neither &quot;live&quot; nor by teleconference.&nbsp; Thus, we
have relied upon the written ballot.&nbsp; Our Rules of Procedure give us
clear instructions on how we are to ballot on motions.&nbsp; This present
ballot complies with those instructions. <br><br>
So, when voting on the motion and the unfriendly amendment, keep in mind
that positions of the Registrar Constituency *do_not* require a 66%
majority and that, until now, we have not taken *any* vote on whether
domain tasting is &quot;good, bad or indifferent&quot;.&nbsp; Till now,
it has been all talk, no vote.<br><br>
The Main Motion does not actually define the position of the
Constituency.&nbsp; It *is* a clear and carefully drafted&nbsp; statement
of two opposing &quot;Views&quot; of &quot;many
registrars&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; If the majority of ballots cast for the
*Amendment* are favourable, there will be a second ballot which will seek
determine whether the Constituency supports one or the other View
described by the Main Motion.<br><br>
Respectfully submitted,<br>
Bob Connelly<br>
Secretary<br><br>
</body>
</html>
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>