[registrars] The Ballot on Domain Tasting has been sent to Voting Members.

[Ross Rader]

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