RE: [registrars] Questions for Amsterdam

["Timothy M. Denton" <tmdenton@magma.ca>]

Thomas:

These are useful and important questions. It seems to me that the time is
coming when the constituency will need somewhat more formal processes, and,
without tryig to get in the way of the informality and effectiveness of our
internal discussions, we need a way to shift discussions into rule-making or
decisions, when this is required. Previous work on the by-laws needs to be
revived.

Perhaps we shall have a draft set of by-laws available for discussion soon.

Timothy Denton, BA, BCL.
Secretary, ICANN-registrars Constituency
www.tmdenton.com
1-613-789-5397 Ottawa
37 Heney Street
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada K1N 5V6
1-819-842-2238 North Hatley




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Thomas Keller
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 10:23 AM
To: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: [registrars] Questions for Amsterdam



Hello,

due to the fact that I cannot participate on todays call I would
like to put forth some questions for further discussion in Amsterdam.

All of this questions are related to the RCs bylaws and the process of
policy-development. Knowing that there are a lot of interessting topics
in the pipe right now and a lot of issues that we should deal with to
assure a a safe future (i.e. funding, .org) I still would like to discuss
this questions. In my believes a well defined and good working process is
essential for an effectiv and efficient policy-development. This issue
has been picked up by varios members on various occasion and a lot
of discussion how a process could look like has taken place. Thought
of all the work that has been done on this subject (see all the mails
from Mike, Ross, Bruce Tonkin, Rob Hall ... the list would be endless) it
is a pity that no final process has been achieved.

Please note that I have not answered the questions myself. I didn't,
having in mind, that it might be a good idea that if this should become
a topic in Amsterdam people could forward complete positioning papers
regarding
these or related question to the list. Comparing and evaluating well tought
papers might be more efficient as discussing only one proposal.

As a final remark I want to mention that I used the word voting on
purpose because I don't believe that consensus can be achieved in an
enviroment of competition. This might be against the ICANN spirit but
I just can't help myself on this point ;)

Questions:

Process:
- how can an issue be elevated to a topic of general interest ?
- how long can a topic be discussed before a decision has to be found ?
- how long shall a decision be valid ?

Voting rules:
- what participation must be reached for a quorum ?
- what majority must be reached to finalize a decision ?

RC Discussion:
- can there be straw polls to direct the course of discussion ?

Representation of the RC within ICANN
- are the NC reps obliged to reflect all positions of the RC
  and if yes how will this be achieved ?
- are RC members working in ICANN working groups bound to
  "decisions" prior made from the RC ?

Best

tom

-

Thomas Keller

Domain Services
Schlund + Partner AG
Erbprinzenstr. 4 - 12                                    Tel.
+49-721-91374-534
76133 Karlsruhe, Germany                                 Fax
+49-721-91374-215
http://www.schlund.de                                    tom@schlund.de