<<<
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
>>>
|