[registrars] Ragistrar Statement friendly amendment
Tim Ruiz
tim at godaddy.com
Tue Apr 18 14:12:40 UTC 2006
Thanks Ross. I'd hate to see all future motions proposed as *accepting
the attached document* to circumvent the opportunity to offer
amendments.
Tim
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [registrars] Ragistrar Statement friendly amendment
From: Ross Rader <ross at tucows.com>
Date: Tue, April 18, 2006 8:59 am
To: Tim Ruiz <tim at godaddy.com>
Cc: registrars at gnso.icann.org
Tim Ruiz wrote:
> Ross, I agree for the most part. But I don't think suggested amendments
> need to hold anything up. If the TF reps consider the amendment friedly
> it can simply be incorporated. If not, the unfriendly amendment can be
> included as an option in the vote.
Ahh yes. I completely forgot that there was a process for dealing with
amendments. In this case, the body of the motion isn't the position
statement. Robert's Rules would typically prevent an amendment from
modifying the text of an attached document, in this case, the position
statement. But I think it would be useful and appropriate to ignore this
for the purpose of this vote (while avoiding setting any precedents).
This is one of the reasons why its so important for each of us to make
sure that we get involved in the comment periods as much as our busy
schedules permit. The voting process isn't a great way of building
consensus around a document - the rules are designed for forward
movement, not compromise.
In any event your proposal sounds like a decent way forward under the
conditions that I outlined above.
--
-rr
"Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions.
All life is an experiment.
The more experiments you make the better."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Contact Info:
Ross Rader
Director, Research & Innovation
Tucows Inc.
c. 416.828.8783
Get Started? http://start.tucows.com
My Blogware: http://www.byte.org
More information about the registrars
mailing list