RE: [registrars] By-Laws

[Elana Broitman <ebroitman@register.com>]

Michael - Since you raise the issue of Register.com's advocating of by-law
amendments, I must remind you that even at the time of the last amendments
we had all acknowledged that we were dealing with the priority issues, and
leaving others to be dealt with on a longer basis.

Your tone in this email is inappropriate.  I also take issue with your
singling out Register.com, as you have repeatedly in various discussions.
Your treatment of Register.com is not objective or representational, as
would be appropriate to a constituency chair.  

I would not normally send this sort of concern to the enire constituency,
but your posting on this and other occasions, as well as statements about
Register.com in constituency meeting, unfortunately warrant our noting our
concern.

As for the by-law amendments, we are supportive of Liz's efforts, which are
undertaken as a volunteer activity by her (and the company she represents).
How Liz's time and effort are spent are her and Rob's decision - not the
constituency's.  I can understand your concern with allocating time to the
bylaws, but if others are willing to volunteer. 

Regards, Elana

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 11:25 AM
To: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: [registrars] By-Laws


Liz,

By all means you can undertake an independent by-law review, however, there
are much more pressing issues on the agenda that confront the constituency,
transfers, IDNs, deletes, whois (universal & fraudulent data) etc. What I
find somewhat puzzling is that the two companies that are advocating by-law
amendments, Register.com and NameScout, are the ones that took the lead in
the last by-law review less than a year ago, during and after the Melbourne
meeting. At that time I gave the by-laws to Register.com and gave them
carte-blanch to modify them as they saw fit based upon the discussion during
and following the Melbourne meeting.

To me by-laws amendments are a luxury not a necessity, and we lose
credibility as a constituency screwing around with trivial administrative
issues while other vital issues go unattended. What good do by-law
amendments do if there are fewer registrars in our constituency as a result
of our failure to address those issues that impact a company's bottom line.

During the Executive Committee this past Monday I personally advocated
having you head up the review of the revised VeriSign,ICANN, DOC contracts
regarding the Audit and 2002 benchmark criteria. Your skills would be
incredibly value to the constituency in this area, but instead you continue
to focus on amending by-laws.

The discussion by the Executive Committee has been you can undertake
whatever study you want as along as it does not distract/divert the
constituency from more pressing issues. Asking for volunteers now and agenda
time in Ghana just seems like an imprudent use of registrar constituency
valuable resources.

Therefore I put forward to our Name Council candidates the following
question: where do you stand on this issue: are by-laws a priority or should
they wait. I and the other registrars await your response.

Mike

P.S. Regarding my earlier email, Jeff Neuman is the new Chair of the
REGISTRY Constituency, not the Registrar Constituency. There seems to have
been some confusion about this. There is still a lot of unfinished work that
me and the rest of the Executive Committee have left to do during your
current term :-)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of williams@lizwilliams.net
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 10:03 PM
> To: registrars@dnso.org
> Cc: lizwilliams@lizwilliams.net
> Subject: [registrars] Registrars: By law review
>
>
> All
>
> I undertook to provide a framework document that would help us
> move forward with a review of the RC bylaws.  There is general
> agreement that this is a necessary process and should be done as
> a matter of priority.
>
> I've attached that document which outlines some suggestions for
> what to do.  I now, if everyone is OK with that, need a few (3 or
> 4 at most) volunteers to help me work through each of the by laws
> to ascertain what changes, amendments, improvements could be made
> on the following criteria:  strengthening the framework in which
> the RC operates to make it more efficient and effective and to
> strengthen the position of the RC with respect to both ICANN and
> the broader business community.
>
> If anyone else is interested, please email me directly.  We can
> use all the help we can get to draft a comprehensive set of
> suggestions about the way forward.  I'd be delighted to see
> someone from Europe and someone from Latin America bring their
> perspective to this work - it is an open process which benefits
> from a range of views.
>
> I'd expect that the timeframe would look something like:
>
> 15 Dec - review of bylaws completed
>
> 31 Jan - suggestions for improvements sought and integrated into
> a comprehensive document
>
> 15 Feb - distribute a document for discussion on RC list
>
> pre-Ghana meeting - formal discussion of revised document
>
>
> Kind regards - comments and input most welcome.
>
> Liz
>
> ___________________________________
> NOCC, http://nocc.sourceforge.net