RE: [registrars] Motion to Restrict Registry Participation in Constituency

["Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@register.com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Elana Broitman 
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 2:51 PM
To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; ross@tucows.com
Subject: RE: [registrars] Motion to Restrict Registry Participation in
Constituency


I would offer a modification to amend our bylaws in order to be consistent with ICANN policies and principles.  At the same time, in keeping with the selective membership criteria of other DNSO constituencies and to avoid conflicts of interest, the Registrar constituency represents the interests of a specific sector, specifically those of ICANN Accredited Registrars.  Therefore, the following amendment to section 4.1 should be considered:

3. A representative of a Registrar constituency member that is affiliated with an ICANN recognized gTLD registry, as affiliation is defined in the ICANN gTLD agreement, who is or has been in the possession of or with access to registry Proprietary Information (e.g., http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-apph-06mar01.htm#A-3.1) or Registry Sensitive Information 
(e.g., http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-apph-06mar01.htm#A-3.2) in the 12 months prior to any term not be permitted to serve as an Elected Officer or GNSO Council representative for a period of 12 months since the last receipt of such information or being in a staff position who would receive such information in the normal course of business.  

4. Each candidate for election to serve as an Elected Officer or GNSO Council representative must declare conflicts of interest, including a statement to the effect that they have not been in possession of any registry proprietary or sensitive information during the 12 months prior to any election.  Such declaration should be made prior to election and at regular 6 month interests post the election, except that a declaration of any change in the conflict of interest should be made outside such schedule.


-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 9:09 PM
To: ross@tucows.com; registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Motion to Restrict Registry Participation in
Constituency


Hello Ross,


> 
> It is precisely this process that I propose that we continue 
> to follow.
> Specifically;
> 
> 1. Conversation on the various amendments stays open until the end of
> this week.
> 2. I will forward the final synthesis of a motion based on 
> your input to
> the mailing list on Friday.
> 3. Comment and review will occur over the weekend.
> 4. I will forward the final version to the executive 
> committee for their
> consideration early Monday for ballot preparation and announcement.

Your process makes sense.

> 
> Motions and Amendments:
> 
> Original Motion - "... that any representative of any ICANN recognized
> gTLD registry in the possession of or with access to registry
> Proprietary Information
> (http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-apph-06mar01.htm#A-3.1 
> in the case of GNR) or Registry Sensitive Information (http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-apph-06mar01.htm#A-3.2 
> also in the case of GNR) not be permitted to
> participate in this constituency at any level, in any capacity, for a
> period of one year since the last receipt of such information and that
> our by-laws be amended to reflect this." 

I don't support the motion as stated above.

My view is that:
(1) Any ICANN accredited registrar may join the constituency and have a vote
(2) Any ICANN accredited registrar may nominate a representative to the constituency to exercise the company's vote

I am OK with a criteria for selecting a "representative" of the constituency as a whole.
e.g an elected officer of the exec committee, an elected representative on the GNSO Council, an elected representative on a task force.  Of course a company that is a registrar may be asked to nominate a representative to a particular committee or task force, but that representative would be only representing the particular registrar and not the constituency as a whole.

I think we already have some protection against a number of wholly owned subsidiaries having additional votes.

I am not concerced about a person within the consistituency exerting undue influence.  I am concerned more about a person that cliams to be representing the constituency as a whole that follows a personal or company agenda to the exclusion of the registrar constituency as a whole.


> Proposed Amendment #1 - "... that any officer, employee, or board
> director of any ICANN recognized gTLD registry not be permitted to
> participate in this constituency at any level, in any capacity, for a
> period of one year since holding such position and that our by-laws be
> amended to reflect this."

Two problems with this amendment.  "In any capacity" is too broad, and a board director is not necessary in possession of any per registrar information.  I am ok with officer or employee of a registry, in regards to criteria for representing the constituency as a whole.


> Proposed Amendment #2 - "... that any officer, employee, or board
> director of any ICANN recognized gTLD registry in the possession of or
> with access to registry Proprietary Information
> http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-apph-06mar01.htm
> #A-3.1 in the case of GNR) or Registry Sensitive Information
> (http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-apph-06mar01.ht
> m#A- not be permitted to participate in this constituency at any level,
> in any capacity, for a period of one year since holding such position
> and that our by-laws be amended to reflect this."

This is better.  Prefer the last phrase be
"not be permitted to REPRESENT THE CONSTITUENCY AS A WHOLE, for a period of one year since holding such position and that our by-laws be amended to reflect this.


> Proposed Amendment #3 - "... that in keeping with the selective
> membership criteria of other DNSO constituencies, the Registrar
> constituency represents the interests of a specific sector, specifically
> those of ICANN Accredited Registrars. To avoid conflicts of interest,
> this typically excludes entities whose primary relationship with ICANN
> is as a TLD Registry Operator. Further, be it resolved that our by-laws
> be amended to reflect this."

How about this as an alternative motion:

That any representative of any ICANN recognized
gTLD registry in the possession of or with access to registry Proprietary Information
(http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-apph-06mar01.htm#A-3.1 
in the case of GNR) or Registry Sensitive Information 
(http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-apph-06mar01.htm#A-3.2 
also in the case of GNR) not be permitted to
REPRESENT THE CONSTITUENCY AS A WHOLE as either an elected member of the Executive committee of the constituency, or an elected member on a council, task force, or committee for a
period of one year since the last receipt of such information and that
our by-laws be amended to reflect this.  Each candidate for election to represent the constituency as a whole must declare any possible conflicts of interest, and include a statement to the effect that they are not in possession of any registry sensitive information, prior to any election.

Regards,
Bruce