Re: [registrars] Re: Formal presentation of a motion

[Jim Archer <jarcher@registrationtek.com>]

I should explain that my earlier note about preferring not to withdraw the 
motion is partially based on the tight schedule.  I think I saw that the NC 
vote is Wednesday?  Is this correct?

Jim

--On Friday, July 19, 2002 3:18 AM +0000 Rob Hall <rob@momentous.ca> wrote:

> Jim,
> I think you are putting the cart before the horse.
> Lets vote on the WLS task for position paper first.  The issue of binding
> our representatives is a broader on than just this WLS vote.  Personally,
> I have every confidence in the fact that our Names Council Reps are
> intelligent and can judge the will of the consituency based on our
> voting, and don't need to be mandated.  To my knowledge, they have always
> voted the will of the consituency.  If memory servers, Bruce recently
> offered to not vote the way he personally wants to, as he feels it may
> not be the will of the consituency.  I can think of no greater example of
> the upstanding character of our Names Council Reps.  Lets concentrate on
> getting a vote done for the WLS itself, rather than arguing about binding
> our NC reps.  I believe someone moved (I think it was Ross) that a vote
> be taken using the votebot on the each of the individual recomendations
> of the task force, and the task force recomendations as a whole.  If this
> was an official movement, then I would second that.  If not, I will be
> happy to move it, but I suspect the RC Executive are already working hard
> towards this end.  Time is of the essence.  Lets determine our opinion of
> the current task force report.  We have gotten off track debating forcing
> reps to vote a certain way.  Lets cross that bridge when, and only IF, we
> need to.  Rob.
>
>
> Jim Archer writes:
>>
>> As a paid member in good standing of the RC I formally submit the
>> following motion and request the immediate support and second of all
>> other  members:
>>
>>
>> Whereas the Registrar's Constituency of the DNSO has formally adopted a
>> resolution strongly opposing WLS, and
>>
>> Whereas some members of the Constituency have suggested that our
>> representatives should not be required to vote in a block and expressed
>> the opinion that they are not required to do so, and
>>
>> Whereas any potential ambiguity, if any, should be removed as soon as
>> possible, and
>>
>> Whereas the Constituency is not prohibited by any of its organizational
>> documents, rules, policies or any other mechanism from directing its
>> representatives as to what vote they should cast and therefore has the
>> clear responsibility and authority to direct how these votes should be
>> cast, be it therefore
>>
>> Resolved that each and all of our representatives be directed to oppose
>> the approval, adoption or creation of WLS as well as any other action or
>> resolution that would cause WLS to be brought into use or existence in
>> any  and all votes taken on the WLS topic in which they participate as
>> our  representatives, and be it
>>
>> Further Resolved that these instructions to our representatives,
>> whomever  they may be a the time, remain in force until a formal vote is
>> taken of  the entire Constitutionally in which all members are given
>> advance notice,  an opportunity to participate, debate and vote.
>>
>>
>>
>> *****************************
>> Jim Archer, CEO
>> Registration Technologies, Inc.
>> 10 Crestview Drive
>> Greenville, RI 02828
>> voice: 401-949-4768
>> fax: 401-949-5814
>> jarcher@RegistrationTek.com
>> http://www.RegistrationTek.com
>>
>



*****************************
Jim Archer, CEO
Registration Technologies, Inc.
10 Crestview Drive
Greenville, RI 02828
voice: 401-949-4768
fax: 401-949-5814
jarcher@RegistrationTek.com
http://www.RegistrationTek.com