Fwd: Re: [registrars] Updated Ballot on Tasting

[Paul Goldstone <paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

NM.  I just caught up on earlier messages and noticed that Jeff 
already suggested that AGP should be an agenda item in Delhi.

~Paul


>Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:27:36 -0500
>To: "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>From: Paul Goldstone <paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [registrars] Updated Ballot on Tasting
>Cc: "Registrar Constituency" <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>Jon,
>
>I understood time was an issue so I voted on the amendment, but after 
>it was changed and I disagreed with the new ballot, I made sure to 
>express my opinions. I think everyone should feel free to do the same.
>
>I also just got the ICANN news alert you sent.  If I understand it 
>correctly, if the ICANN proposal passes, we may end up paying for 
>every AGP transaction irregardless of the reason.  If not now, when is 
>an appropriate time to submit our suggestions for allowances or refunds 
>based on a ratio of AGP vs total registrations, or any other suggestions?
>
>Best Regards,
>
>~Paul
>
>
>At 05:22 PM 1/29/2008, Nevett, Jonathon wrote:
>
>>Just to bring everyone up to speed.  The Registrar Constituency has
>>approved a statement on tasting, which has been sent to the GNSO
>>Council.  The statement provides that registrars are opposed to the
>>elimination of the AGP.  It also provides two "views" that registrars
>>generally have on tasting.  At the same time, the RC also approved an
>>amendment that seeks to determine more specific member views on tasting.
>>
>>
>>As you know, we have been back and forth on various ballots.  As
>>highlighted by posts by Tom Barrett and Paul Goldstone, the problem is
>>that there appear to be more than just the two views on tasting that we
>>approved in the statement.  It's too bad that this dialogue hadn't
>>occurred during the discussion period on the statement.  Considering
>>that our statement was due on December 5, the public comment period
>>closed yesterday, and the GNSO Final Report is due next week, however,
>>we just don't have time (nor the inclination) to revisit the whole
>>statement.   
>>
>>Therefore, by a unanimous vote of the Executive Committee, we are moving
>>forward with the following ballot.  The ballot, which will open
>>tomorrow, is the same ballot that I posted on Friday, but we have added
>>a line for members to abstain.  We hope that the abstention line
>>responds to comments from folks that they don't like the ballot at all,
>>they think that this is a waste of time, etc. 
>>
>>
>>/_ / Agree with view 1
>>
>>/_ / Agree with view 2
>>
>>/_ / Agree with both views
>>
>>/_ / Don't agree with either view
>>
>>/_ / Abstain
>>
>>
>>Sorry that this has been such a difficult process.  
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>Jon