<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] Re: Ballot to determine whether ICANN Registrars favor or oppose Domain Tasting.
- To: <russ@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'Robert F. Connelly'" <BobC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Registrars Constituency'" <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [registrars] Re: Ballot to determine whether ICANN Registrars favor or oppose Domain Tasting.
- From: "John Berryhill" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:18:41 -0500
- In-reply-to: <4790F56B.7080309@naugus.com>
- List-id: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Organization: John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq.
- References: <20080117095547.9924.qmail@qmt.tidewinds.com> <4790F56B.7080309@naugus.com>
- Reply-to: <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AchaBG3i2cjdUCi0Q9uH4mo3pcZysAABotrA
>We make no judgments regarding anyone's use of the AGP.
The Amendment was for:
"A vote be taken to determine the position of the members of the Registrars
Constituency on domain tasting"
The "vote ... to determine the position of the members" was translated into:
"For Domain Tasting" / "Against Domain Tasting" / "Abstain"
I don't know that the ballot reflects the determination for which the
Amendment called.
For example, let's say that we were to determine the position of the members
on eggplant.
I don't like eggplant. I don't eat eggplant. I don't care if you eat
eggplant. If you want to eat eggplant, that's your problem. I'd prefer
that you not eat it at my table, and I'm certainly not going to cook it for
you.
So, in terms of this ballot, I can't tell if that makes me "For" or
"Against" eggplant.
I'm assuming that it makes me "Against" eggplant.
But this is as illuminating as asking politicians what is their position on,
say, education. I would expect most of them to be "For" education.
Presumably, any commercial actor is "Against" anything done by its
competitors in some sense.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|