RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballot

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

Compressing two threads into one...

> which must be approved by ICANN in connection ICANN reform.

I suspect you are referring to Article 20, Section 5, paragraph 3 of
ICANN's new bylaws. I am happy to proceed with any amendments to our
bylaws that make sense for our membership. Whether or not the ICANN
staff will "bless them" as you suggest is a matter that they should
raise with us. It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to write bylaws
simply with the intention of "getting them approved". I would rather
write bylaws that make sense for our membership and then
negotiate/fight/cajole/beg to get them approved. 

> Somehow I just think your priorities are not in line. 
> There are other pressing issues as opposed to trying 
> to push through a by-law amendment.

Close to three weeks has elapsed since the motion was first proposed and
seconded. Other than this, I haven't heard that the motion is being
"pushed" prematurely. 

With regards to the other pressing issues that you refer to, I would
encourage other members to come forth with proposals for discussion so
that we can deal with these issues. Hopefully these other discussions
will lead us to the presentation of a motion and a vote of the members.
This really is the only way that we can effectively proceed. I want to
bring other items forward for discussion, but given the potential harm
that ICANN's precedent with PersonalNames poses, I felt it was important
to present this motion ahead of the other proposals that we wish to
make. I suspect that this view might be shared by other members of the
constituency or we would not have enjoyed the degree of healthy debate
that we did on the subject and the refinements that were offered by
other members.

> I just can't see why this can't wait until the total 
> overhaul of the by-laws later this year.

The motion is actually silent on when the amendment of the bylaws should
actually occur. As you mention, as long as they are in place in time to
be effective as we intend, then it doesn't really matter when we vote on
them. Therefore, my request still stands - there is no time like the
present - especially given that we have no other ballots scheduled that
would conflict with this - not that I am aware of anyways.

                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org 
> [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 12:54 PM
> To: ross@tucows.com; 'Registrars Executive Committee'; 
> registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballot
> 
> 
> Ross,
> 
> The by-laws already have a requirement for elected officers 
> to disclose potential conflicts. Your proposal as original 
> submitted was to prevent ICANN accredited registrars from 
> designating a specific representative. Now the proposal is 
> designed to prevent a specific representative from holding an 
> elected position. My question to you, registrars are rather 
> an intelligent bunch of people. If a registry was to run a 
> representative for an elected position, I think the 
> registrars would be able to make the right decision and vote 
> for the best candidate. As previously stated given other more 
> important issues, I just can't see why this can't wait until 
> the total overhaul of the by-laws later this year.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> > Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 12:28 PM
> > To: 'Registrars Executive Committee'; registrars@dnso.org
> > Subject: [registrars] Proposed Ballot
> >
> >
> > This ballot was proposed by Ross Rader on 01/29/03 and 
> seconded by Bob 
> > Connelly on 01/29/03. Amendments from Bruce Tonkin, Elana Broitman, 
> > Tim Ruiz and Ross Rader have been incorporated into the motion 
> > resulting in the text below. No further amendments, commentary, 
> > questions or counter-proposals were offered after last call 
> was made 
> > on 02/14/03.
> >
> > I would therefore like to formally request that this motion, as 
> > written, be put to a vote of the membership of the Registrar 
> > Constituency and accepted if affirmed by a majority of voters.
> >
> > <motion>
> >
> > "Be it resolved that;
> >
> > 1.0 In keeping with the selective membership criteria of other GNSO 
> > constituencies, the registrar constituency represents the 
> interests of 
> > a specific sector, specifically those of ICANN Accredited 
> Registrars.
> >
> > 1.1 Therefore to avoid conflicts of interest, this 
> typically excludes 
> > entities whose primary relationship with ICANN is as a TLD Registry 
> > Operator;
> >
> > and that our by by-laws be amended to reflect this.
> >
> > 2.0 That any representative of any ICANN recognized gTLD 
> Registry in 
> > the possession of, or with access to, Registry Proprietary 
> Information 
> > or Registry Sensitive Information, as defined in the relevant 
> > ICANN/Registry contract are ineligible to represent the 
> constituency 
> > as a whole, either as an elected member of the Executive 
> Committee of 
> > the constituency, or as an elected member on a council, 
> task force, or 
> > other GNSO or ICANN committee, working group or panel, for 
> a period of 
> > one year since the last receipt of such information;
> >
> > and that our by-laws be amended to reflect this.
> >
> > 3.0 Each candidate for election or appointed to serve as a 
> > representative of the constituency in any fashion, including those 
> > mentioned in 2.0, must declare potential conflicts of interest, 
> > including a declaration to the effect that they have not been in 
> > posssession of any Registry Proprietary or Sensitive Information 
> > during the 12 months prior to any election.
> >
> > 3.1 Such declaration should be made prior to the 
> commencement of the 
> > election process and at regular 6 month interval post election. 
> > Excepting that a declaration of any material change in the 
> conflict of 
> > interest should be made immediately, or as soon as is practicable, 
> > after the material change has occurred.
> >
> > 3.2 Failure to complete any such declaration will be deemed 
> sufficient 
> > basis for the constituency Executive Committee to invalidate the 
> > election or appointment of the candidate;
> >
> > and that our by-laws be amended to reflect this."
> >
> > </motion>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> > -rwr
> >
> 
>