Re: [registrars] By-Laws

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

Ross

Many thanks for that.  In your last paragraph, you've offered to provide a
list with recommendations.  I'd be grateful if you could do that - perhaps
in the order I've suggested in the framework document so that we can collect
information in an orderly fashion.

I'd be delighted to hear from others directly their views and their
recommendations for change.  What we're really looking for is a toolbox to
achieve our work - any tools that help us achieve our goals as an RC are
useful.  We are then able to craft those into bylaws (or amendments) that
are designed to achieve specific results.

Kind regards.

Liz
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
To: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>; <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 6:10 AM
Subject: Re: [registrars] By-Laws


> > 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.
>
> To answer the question posed, I don't think that it is the place of any
> Names Council rep (candidate or otherwise) to make a determination on what
> is and what isn't a priority of the Constituency. The postitions of our NC
> reps within the NC must necessarily be reflective of the Constituency's
> wishes. The trick is ensuring an open line of bi-directional communication
> between the Constituency membership and the Names Council representatives.
I
> think I touched on this pretty clearly earlier this week in my acceptance
of
> nomination.
>
> My opinion as a member of this constituency is a little bit more
involved...
>
> I believe that the issue is quite simple actually.
>
> First, we as a constituency must define who we are and what we stand for.
> The foundations for this have been bubbling undercurrents since the
original
> formation of this group back in early 1999 - its time that this mission
> statement be written down and agreed to. From this, defining what our long
> and short term goals are becomes a much simpler issue. Once our goals have
> been decided, defining the objectives, tactics and assigning resources is
> almost a trivial exercise. Of course, measuring our progress and refining
> our approach is an ongoing effort that we can't forget about either.
>
> In this particular case, I think that a discussion concerning roles &
> procedures needs to happen. Whether this results in a formal amendment to
> the by-laws, or a simple statement of constituency procedure is irrelevant
> to me.
>
> For instance, while the by-laws indicate that the Names Council
> representatives should consult with the constituency where possible to
> ensure that the views and interests of the RC are represented properly,
how
> far in practice does this and should this go. Should the NC reps vote as a
> bloc based on a predetermined position like they do in some other
> constituencies? Or is a more dynamic model preferred by the constituency?
> And so on.
>
> As far as procedures go, further definition is also required. How we
> determine what the views of the constituency are is very important and
while
> I think that we currently use a very enlightened and appropriate model, it
> is not clear to all registrars what this model is. A concise statement of
> what the practices are and what they should be will assist us in
developing
> more cogent positions quicker. If each registrar understands how an idea
can
> move through the constituency and get passed to the NC reps for
> consideration by the Names Council, we stand a much better chance of both
> increasing participation within the constituency (thus increasing the
> legitimacy and diversity of the proposals) and finalizing policy issues
such
> as you describe in a much more expedient manner. With some luck, a defined
> transfers process will become part of our operating contracts sometime
> during March. By my count, this puts the turn-around on this particular
> issue at roughly one year. Establishing consensus policy necessarily takes
> time, but the Constituency shouldn't be adding to the amount of time
> required by unnecessarily delaying proposals within the constituency.
>
> I am a big fan of organizing the organization - at the very least, it
allows
> each of us to determine where we stand at any given point in time.*But*,
we
> should consider only the minimal structural work  necessary to move our
> collective objectives forward. This need not be a complete review of the
> by-laws as I mentioned earlier, statements of procedure may suffice at
this
> particular point in time. Whatever it is that we ultimately decide upon,
we
> must ensure that it doesn't distract us or prevent us from achieving our
> operational policy goals as you mention below. I would agree that a
complete
> overhaul would be distractive at this point.
>
> In other words, we need to take some very important steps to make sure
that
> the Constituency evolves in a manner that appropriately benefits its
> membership. At the same time, we can't let this distract us from the
issues.
> It really comes down to a question of priorities and a decision on what is
> really important to the Constituency.
>
> If there is any interest, I am happy to put together a list, with
> recommendations, of where our current structure and processes may hinder
our
> operational policy development efforts. I will leave it as a matter for
the
> constituency to decide if dealing with these hindrances requires a
> modification to the by-laws or just simple acceptance as a statement of
> constituency practice that we operate by.
>
> -rwr
>
>