RE: [registrars] Proposals for Rules for the Association

["Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@register.com>]

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

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
>
>