Re: [registrars] By-Laws

[Larry Erlich <erlich@domainregistry.com>]

Elana Broitman wrote:
> 
> 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 won't comment on whether Liz and Rob's efforts are the
business of the constituency or not. But I will say that if
someone is spending time revising something that is not
*as important* as something else, it will detract from the
time available (for me and others) to comment and review more important items.
And possibly cause overload to the point where there is
not proper review of the more important items. Make Sense?
Given this, Mike's comments are ok.

As far as "volunteer activity", I think a review of
Liz's website indicates clearly (to me anyway) what she stands to
gain by helping out the constituency. It also appears that
she is the principal of "Conrad Group" (and the corresponding
domain name conradgroup.com (fyi liz) expired Nov 12th of this year.)

Larry Erlich

http://www.DomainRegistry.com


>  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

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc.
215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------