Re: [registrars] Motion on Transfers Report

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

Something is wonky with my mail - nothing for 90 minutes, then a flood -
sorry for the delay.

Given Mike's more recent question, I'm not sure how we are to proceed. I did
take the 90 minutes to read through the bylaws and there isn't anything in
3.3(1) that prevents us from passing a motion that provides the NC with
directives, however I think that I also understand your point in that we
might not want to specifically direct the NC vote. I think in this case that
we do and if there is no procedural violation of the bylaws, then we should
include that in the motion. If my estimation of the bylaws is off, then I
completely agree.

In any event, Mike's last message has left me confused as to whether or not
it is appropriate for a member to raise a motion for second and vote, so I
think we need to hear it from the top whether or not this discussion is
actually useful.


                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Hall" <rob@momentous.com>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>; <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 3:26 PM
Subject: RE: [registrars] Motion on Transfers Report


> Ross,
>
> Perhaps you and Mike can refresh my memory.  I thought we didn't "Direct
> names council reps" with a motion.  Rather, they were to vote as they felt
> the will of the contituency, which could in fact be a split vote if the
> constituency was so split.
>
> I am uncomfortable with a motion that "directs" them to do anything.
>
> I would support an amendment to the motion that shows support for the
> report, but I can't vote "YES" to a motion that "directs".  This would be
a
> bad, since my "no" vote would have nothing to do with the matter at hand,
> but rather the procedural issue of mandating how our elected
representatives
> vote.
>
> Please seperate the two issues.
>
> Rob.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 3:06 PM
> To: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: [registrars] Motion on Transfers Report
>
>
> Folks,
>
> As you are aware, the Transfers TF final report is complete and the Names
> Council will shortly vote on whether or not this document represents the
> consensus views of the community and whether or not it should become
binding
> consensus policy.
>
> I believe that this is an emminently "implementable" report that prefers
the
> interests of our constituency and I will be voting to approve the report.
> But before I can do that, we need to get our voting software warmed up and
> run a ballot.
>
> The ballot that I propose we run (yes, this is a formal motion) follows
> below. We will need someone to second this motion. Friendly amendments are
> also welcomed. Note, this motion is worded such that if supported by a
> majority of the constituency, it will allow our NC reps to vote to approve
> the report. The report can be found here:
>
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021130.NCTransferTF-gaining-and-losing-regi
> strars.html
>
> I will be posting some thoughts on the final report later today.
>
> ----
>
> Motion #1
>
> "Whereas the Registrar Constituency remains committed to resolving the
issue
> of domain name portability to the satisfaction of registrars, registries
and
> registrants and;
>
> Whereas the Constituency has been considering this issue since early 2001,
> and;
>
> Whereas the Constituency has supported the development of a consensus
policy
> through the DNSO Names Council processes, and;
>
> Whereas the Names Council Task Force on Domain Name Transfers has
completed
> and published its Final Report, and;
>
> Whereas this report makes 29 recommendations that ICANN can adopt as
> consensus policy and resolve the issue,
>
> Therefore, let it be resolved that the Constituency formally support this
> final report and direct the Constituency Names Council Representatives to
> vote in favor of this report at the December 14, 2002 Names Council
> meeting."
>
> ---
>
>                        -rwr
>
>
>
>
> "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
> idiot."
> - Steven Wright
>
> Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
>
>