Re: [registrars] Comments on Verisign Wait List proposal

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

Jim can probably do a better job explaining his motion, but as I understand
it, this is a separate track designed to replace a "full rebuttal/statement
of concern/we fully agree" with a relatively minimal "we reject this on the
following grounds".

Thanks,

-rwr
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Hall" <rob@momentous.ca>
To: "Registrars Mail List" <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 2:38 PM
Subject: RE: [registrars] Comments on Verisign Wait List proposal


> Aren't we putting the cart before the horse.
>
> I know that I, for one, would like to see the position paper from the
> drafting team, prior to voting on support for the WLS.
>
> Why the big rush ?  I thought Rick had a plan to publish and then hold a
> vote, and to publish the results of that vote with the paper (with Yes
votes
> being signatories to the document).
>
> Frankly, this seems like the prudent course of action.  My objection
earlier
> was not to voting, but rather to using the word "concensus" as opposed to
"a
> vote".  I think they can be two very different things.
>
> Additionally, it is exactly this drafting process where more agreement can
> be reached.  If we took a vote on everything before producing position
> papers to vote on, I suspect we would not get anywhere close to a document
> that many could live with.
>
> I mean, whats next ?  A motion from Bruce to support the WLS, that we all
> spend time discussing and voting on ?  Best to wait until the paper is
> drafted and know the entire story before the vote.
>
> Rob.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 1:08 PM
> To: Jim Archer; Elana Broitman
> Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Comments on Verisign Wait List proposal
>
>
>
> >
> > Rick, if you see this, what is the next procedure for moving the
> resolution
> > I proposed to a vote?
>
> I'm not Rick, but I'm guessing that a second for the resolution must be
> obtained, a discussion of the resolution and then a vote.
>
> In the interests of moving to a discussion, I'd be happy to second the
> resolution unless there are further amendments forthcoming.
>
> No well thought out resolution should die for lack of a second, let's wait
> to kill it until the discussion phase ;)
>
> -rwr
>
>
>