Re: [registrars] By-Laws

["Liz Williams" <lizwilliams@lizwilliams.net>]

Michael

Firstly, I do not appreciate your tone.  I, along with others including
Bruce Beckwith and Ross Rader (and Tim Denton), have offered to do a review
of the bylaws to assist the RC move forward into a new phase.  Anyone in the
constituency is welcome to be part of that process and there is no "agenda"
as you've implied here.  The work of the constituency belongs to everyone
and that will remain the case.

Secondly, whilst you continually name particular registrars and single them
out for specific "treatment" from the chair, I note that we still do not
have a disclosure of interests from the Executive Committee or the Names
Council representatives.  I ask, in line with the minutes of the MdR
meeting, that that be posted COB today to the RC list.

To the substance of your email.

I remind you that the chair does not set the priorities of the group nor
does he determine who does what work in what way.  This is an open group and
everyone is entitled to suggest work for the group and VOLUNTEER to do it.
You will have noted in my attachment (if you read it) that I asked for
participation particularly from Europe and Latin America to encourage a view
other than that which we've had to date.  I'm sure you support this as an
integral part of membership outreach.

You will also note in my attachment that I suggested a smaller "working
group" method for completing work - your note about how much the RC has to
do, how important it is and how it should be prioritised can be easily
handled by asking for help.  By opening the group to participation at a
broader level you will find, personally, less to do.  It will also bring
fresh ideas to the table.

You are aware that review of the bylaws was discussed with reference to the
Names Council elections and that I wrote to a smaller group of the RC to ask
whether it wouldn't be useful, given the shifting environment in which we
operate, to extend that review to the broader set of by laws.

Tim (Denton) and I agreed to work together to put a framework around that
discussion - he to focus on the immediacy of the Names Council elections and
me to work on the longer term view.

You will also be aware that there was discussion about the work of the RC
and how to make it more effective as we move towards a different ICANN board
structure and a different constituency structure.

At present, the RC bylaws are the weakest compared to the other
constituencies.  To support the work of the RC, as I said in my note, we
have two tasks.  The first was to support an ExCom, the second was to
strengthen our processes and the framework in which we operate to give us a
more formal, "recognised" way of operating.

The review is not "independent".  It is undertaken with the support of a
broader group of people.  I have volunteered for that work as it is
something I can contribute to the group within my area of expertise and
experience.

Liz
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>
To: <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 3:24 AM
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
>