RE: [registrars] Update on Tasting Ballot

["Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

And this is why I voted against the amendment . . .

Let's just proceed.  I already received the ballot.  The substance and
process are far from perfect, but at least the GNSO will get a sense of
where we are coming from.

Hopefully, we will do better now that we have a professional staff
person on board.

Thanks.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert F. Connelly
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 5:44 PM
To: Registrars Constituency
Cc: Dan Busarow
Subject: RE: [registrars] Update on Tasting Ballot


At 05:11 PM 1/27/2008 Sunday  -0500, Nevett, Jonathon wrote:
>Note that neither of the above actions requires new policy or
>modifications to existing policy. Therefore the RC, regardless of their
>view, is generally opposed to a PDP on this issue. 

Dear Jon: I hate to think of it, but should we abort the present ballot
before it is issued (in about one hour)?  I could start it a day later.

Or is your present posting sufficient for the needs?

I am only anxious that all our members understand the issues.  The
ballot on the Main Motion is very important.  The dashes you inserted
into the text in the Wiki were a very good addition to the original
text.

I also urge all voting members to vote.   I ordinarily don't recommend
abstaining on a vote.  I will not abstain on a ballot  unless it is a
situation in which I am not sufficiently informed to be able to render a
valid judgement.  (Parenthetically, I don't like the rule which adds the
"abstain" votes to the "no" votes.  *My* abstentions can be read as "I
just don't know").

However, the way this ballot is drawn, I can conceive of members putting
serious thought behind a vote for both or for neither of the primary
options.

So, get out there and vote.

Respectfully submitted,
Bob Connelly
Secretary for the RC