RE: [registrars] Response to Letter Issued by Executive Committee of the BC

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>]

Rick,

As per our agreement during the Executive Committee call this afternoon, I
forwarded a letter of support to Vint and the Board with the following
supporters: Michael Palage (Chair); Rick Wesson (CTO); Tim Denton
(Secretariat); Bruce Tonkin (Names Council Representative); and Ken Stubbs
(Names Council Representative and original signatory). I also note the
support submitted via the list by Register.com and GoDaddy.

I stated to Vint that if he or the Board needed additional signatories to
document the support for this position within the Registrar Constituency,
the Registrar Executive Committee would offer its assistance.

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Rick Wesson
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 7:19 PM
> To: Ken Stubbs
> Cc: 'vcerf@mci.net'; 'apisan@servidor.unam.mx'; 'touton@icann.org';
> 'lynn@icann.org'; names council; joe sims; Rita Rodin; Registrars
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Response to Letter Issued by Executive
> Committee of the BC
>
>
>
> All:
>
> Rick Wesson, Executive Committee Member of the Registrars Constituency
> and CEO of Alice's Registry, Inc. endorsees and supports the letter
> by K. Stubbs below.
>
>
> -rick
>
>
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Ken Stubbs wrote:
>
> > Mr. Chairman and members of the ICANN board..
> >
> >
> >
> > I am personally responding here to a letter you have received
> from Executive Committee of the Commercial and Business Users
> Constituency indicating that it was "their understanding" that
> the weighted voting provided for in the new ICANN Bylaws does not
> apply to the selection of the two directors to be chosen from the
> GNSO and alluding that had they known of the recent
> interpretation of the Bylaws from the General Counsel, they may
> not have supported the weighted voting.
> >
> >
> >
> > The BC Executive Committee also argues that ICANN should revert
> to its previous method of voting, "one constituency one vote",
> for these directors, because "elections do not occur too often"..
> (Whatever that means!)
> >
> >
> >
> > I feel quite strongly that these 11th hour arguments have no
> merit. I am also quite concerned that they only tend to confuse &
> obfuscate the ICANN reform effort and all the hard work and
> compromise from all sides that it represents.
> >
> >
> >
> > I support the General Counsel's interpretation of the Bylaws
> with respect to weighted voting and believe that it is the
> accurate interpretation as to how the GNSO is to select its two
> ICANN Board of Directors.
> >
> >
> >
> > >From the inception of the ICANN Reform effort, the Registrar
> Constituency acknowledged that reform was needed both of the
> ICANN Policy Process as well as the methodology used in selecting
> ICANN Board Directors.  The Board, (in it's wisdom) acknowledged
> that not all stakeholders are equally affected by the policies
> recommended and passed by the ICANN Board of Directors. They
> recognized that, not only are the Contracted service providers
> the principal source for funding that ICANN receives, but they,
> unlike any other stakeholders, are contractually bound to comply
> with any ICANN consensus policies.
> >
> >
> >
> > It would be inconsistent, to say the least, to have an
> equalized voting structure that recognizes the need, as the Board
> has, for weighted voting in the policy process, but not in the
> selection of ICANN Board Directors within the GNSO, who may be
> called upon to make such decisions.
> >
> >
> >
> > For if the GNSO voted for its ICANN Board Directors, as the
> Business Constituency argues, "one constituency, one vote", one
> can easily see that such a vote would be susceptible to capture
> by those that are not under contract with ICANN.  I believe that
> we can safely assume that the number of non-contracting
> constituencies will increase over the next couple of years
> (adding a small business constituency, an academics constituency,
> an individuals constituency, etc. as was hinted at during the
> reform process) as compared with two contracting parties.
> >
> > We need to have the comfort of knowing that the ICANN Board
> Directors selected from the GNSO are truly representative of the
> TOTAL GNSO community, which includes not only user
> constituencies, but also contracting parties
> >
> >
> >
> > The Registrar community is confident that this process will
> work if the safeguards proposed by the ERC and adopted by the
> ICANN Board in Shanghai are kept in place as we move forward with
> a reformed ICANN.
> >
> >
> >
> > Due to the late hour in which the issue has been raised by the
> Executive Committee of the BC, it was impossible to fully consult
> with my Constituency prior to composing this letter, but based on
> the Registrar Constituency support given to the ERC and their
> efforts in drafting the by-laws, I am confident that this
> document represent the feelings of our members.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanking you in advance for your consideration in this matter
> >
> >
> >
> > Ken Stubbs
> >
> > Names Council Representative
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>