Re: [registrars] Proposals for Rules for the Association

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> I think we agree.  I had in mind a consecutive vote as follows:

Sort of. I do agree that amendments need to be given equal weight to the
original propositions.

However, I don't agree that the amendment and the original proposal can
stand alone as separate votes.

I was more proposing that a Robert's Rules construct be adopted where

a) the original motion is properly carried or defeated
b) amendments to the original motion are moved and then properly carried or
defeated.

I believe that this gets us to the same point, but certainly provides
greater clarity concerning the process and outcome.

I think that it's also really important that we don't let the goal of
bringing clarity to the table get lost in the semantics. What I mean is that
we, as a constituency, might not be able to come to complete agreement on
what the universal everlasting procedures should look like. I would hope
that we could let the small points go and work them out as we move down the
track rather than stand fast at the starting gate until all of the rules
have been 100% resolved and agreed upon for all time. We've lurched along
sort-of-okay for the last two years or so without many rules, so let's not
forget that while we are making the new rules :) None of this is directed at
anyone in particular, but I do fear that we might get bogged down in the
determination of process while the rest of ICANN continues on it's merry
way...

-rwr


>
> a) original proposal.  if it loses or wins, move to amendment
> b) proposal as amended.  if it loses and the original lost, the decision
is
> considered to be against the proposal. if it loses and the original won,
the
> original proposal is considered to have been adopted.
> c) the difficulty is what happens if both win, then, the fairest process
> might be to vote on one of the two choices (in other words, there's no
> longer a choice of making no change, so that some votes may change and
> provide a clear outcome)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 3:02 PM
> Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Proposals for Rules for the Association
>
>
> Some good points Elana...clarification tho'...
>
> 3.1              .  (we need rules for considering the original proposal
> separately from the amendment.  If any registrar (2 registrars) object to
> consideration of the amended version only, both versions should be
> considered - eb)
>
> Would it make sense to fully consider, strike the original proposition or
> defeat it via vote first in order to ensure that we only have one motion
on
> the floor at a time? I don't think that we want to get into a position
where
> we have three or four votes carried out contemporaneously in order to
> consider an original motion and two or three amendments to it. Could be
> wrong, but it strikes me, from a parliamentary standpoint, as being
awkward
> and potentially counterproductive to execute against multiple
considerations
> simultaneously.
>
> 3.1              (the original proponent of a motion must be consulted in
> the framing of the ballot so that procedure is not used to circumvent such
> registrar's intent - eb)
>
> This is an excellent point - complete concurrence from my POV...
>
> -rwr
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@register.com>
> To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>; "Timothy M. Denton"
> <tmdenton@magma.ca>
> Cc: <registrars@dnso.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 2:57 PM
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposals for Rules for the Association
>
>
> > Tim - good job!  It's time for some regularization of the rules.
Attached
> > are a few comments
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> > Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2001 3:33 PM
> > To: Timothy M. Denton
> > Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: [registrars] Proposals for Rules for the Association
> >
> >
> > >  My comments are incorporated in the attached file.
> >
> > As are mine. Tx Tim.
> >
> > -rwr
> >
> >
>
>