Re: [registrars] proposed new by law "amendments section" comments

[Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@digitel.net>]

thanks for the suggested guidance here ross but....
a document of such significance needs to be analyzed and
dealt with on an on-going  basis..

we are framing a structure which will guide the constituency for the next
few years and it is best to be deliberate take the time needed to
insure that we don't run into problems in the future that could have been
easily solved by closer analysis and reflection now.

this is a working document, not a "final product" and i am quite sure that
those who participated in it's drafting did so with the idea that
they were helping to reflect the intentions & desires of all of us and would
warmly welcome any suggestions which might make it more responsive to the
constituencies expectations.

if other constituancy members are not comfortable with any suggestions like
this then, i am quite certain, we will hear from them..

BTW.. your assumptions re: elections have not been the case when major
issues or representations were at stake . If changing the by-laws in the
future isn't a major issue then what is?



----- Original Message -----
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
To: "'Ken Stubbs'" <kstubbs@digitel.net>; "'Registrars'"
<Registrars@dnso.org>
Cc: "'Elana Broitman'" <ebroitman@register.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 7:30 PM
Subject: RE: [registrars] proposed new by law "amendments section" comments


> Ken said...
> "This 10 percent number is far to low.. i feel that at least 50% of the
> members must actually cast a vote in order for the result to be binding
> on the constituancy. The impact of a by law amendment is so great that
> there must be insurance that a substantial portion of the members act on
> the issue .  I do though believe that the 2/3 majority of votes cast
> makes sense."
>
> There is a provision for a minimum of 10% to a minimum of 10 members
> which needs to be made clearer in relationship to this clause.
> Historically voter turn-out has been terrible - in fact, I don't think
> we've come close to anything near 50% with any sort of regularity - the
> last two ballots being the notable exceptions. With that being said, the
> bar should probably be higher for bylaws amendments than they are for
> regular ballots and elections.
>
> As a general point, I would urge those commenting on the document not to
> consider specific items in isolation. There are any number of
> interdependencies that affect how specific clauses are to be
> interpreted. Sometimes these get tricky if you just focus on a specific
> passage. There were a number of registrars that participated in the
> drafting and I'm sure that any one of use would be happy to answer
> questions, such as these, as they arise.
>
> -rwr
>
>
>