ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[registrars]


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

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



Happy new year Bob! (and everyone else).

To be honest, I find the whole ballot very confusing. While I agree with some aspects of what is stated, I find other elements of the motion very troubling. I don't believe that I can vote in favor of the motion without somehow endorsing elements of the statement that I fundamentally disagree with.

As such, I will be voting against this motion. Time permitting, I will send something along to the list outlining exactly what our position and preferences on this subject are.

On 4-Jan-08, at 11:56 AM, Robert F. Connelly wrote:

Dear Registrars: The ballot on the motion has been sent to the Voting Members List. 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.

The ballot will remain open until midnight GMT, 11 January 2008. A second and third ballot will be sent between now and the closing of the ballot. Voting members may vote several times but any secondary ballots overwrite the prior ballots. The final results will be open for all to see.

For your convenience, the Main Motion and the Unfriendly Amendment are posted at the following URL:

          http://icannregistrars.org/Talk:ICANN_Registrars

I call your attention to the following "preamble" to the Main Motion:

The Motion: Move that the Registrar Constituency approve the following statement as Registrar Constituency Statement on Domain Tasting: The Registrars Constituency (RC) has not reached Supermajority support for a particular position on Domain Name Tasting. Below are statements of the views/positions espoused by RC members.

end quote:

Searching our By-Laws and Rules of Procedure, I do not find a definition for "Supermajority" nor any reference to a "Supermajority". It *is* clear that any amendment to the By-Laws requires a 66% majority. However, the ICANN By-Laws make multiple references to Supermajority.

Article 16, Additional Definitions states "'Supermajority Vote' means a vote of more than sixty-six (66) percent of the members present at a meeting of the applicable body".

Those who drafted the Registrar Constituency By-Laws and Rules of Procedure were opposed to our earlier use of "straw ballots". 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. I believe that, until our last two meetings, we have not ever had a quorum of voting members present at a meeting, neither "live" nor by teleconference. Thus, we have relied upon the written ballot. Our Rules of Procedure give us clear instructions on how we are to ballot on motions. This present ballot complies with those instructions.

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 "good, bad or indifferent". Till now, it has been all talk, no vote.

The Main Motion does not actually define the position of the Constituency. It *is* a clear and carefully drafted statement of two opposing "Views" of "many registrars". 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.

Respectfully submitted,
Bob Connelly
Secretary


Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
t. 416.538.5492
c. 416.828.8783
http://www.domaindirect.com

"To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow."
- Erik Nupponen







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