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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>]

I share Russ' concerns about becoming paralyzed if we set the bar too
high here. But, if we are only talking about bylaw amendments, then
perhaps what Ken suggests would somewhat modified like this:

A vote of at least two thirds of all ballots cast in favor of an
amendment is necessary for adoption, except that if the total of all
votes cast represents less than 50% of the membership, then a simple
majority that represents no less than one-third of the membership is
necessary for adoption.

I may not be wording it quite right, but you see where I'm heading.

Tim


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On
Behalf Of Ken Stubbs
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 9:12 AM
To: Ross Wm. Rader; 'Registrars'
Cc: 'Elana Broitman'
Subject: Re: [registrars] proposed new by law "amendments section"
comments

ross & all ...

please note the "subject"  of the thread i started with my initial
recommendation...

i am afraid that my comments regarding the size of vote quorums ,which
are
specifically addressed to by law amendments,
(i.e. high significance to the constituancy) are somehow being
(attributed)
to all votes..

ken


----- 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: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: [registrars] proposed new by law "amendments section"
comments


> > thanks for the suggested guidance here ross but....
>
> I'm not sure what you are saying Ken. What I've said is in no way
> inconsistent with the intentions that you were trying to convey -
unless
for
> some reason you've taken my general comments as being directed at you
> specifically. Taking my words out of context seems to be a growing
trend
on
> this list :-)
>
> To the business at hand - you've raised an important point of fact
that
> requires further discussion. First, in the current draft, six voters
can
not
> constitute quorum - there is a minimum number of ten voters according
to
the
> draft - this fact needs to be made clearer in a future draft. Thank
you
for
> pointing out this lack of clarity in the text.
>
> Regarding quorum, etc., you say that a minimum of 10% is too low and
that
> 50% of the members must cast a vote in order for it to be binding. I
say
> that this number is far too high for most practical purposes but that
in
any
> event, 10% of eligible voters to a minimum of ten voters might be too
low
> anyways.  I also agreed with you that we need to set the bar higher
for
> bylaws amendments than we do for other more regular matters. Is this a
fair
> summary of the salient points of our discussion thus far?
>
> Thankfully, voter turn-out is something that we can easily measure. A
> logical approach would be to take a look at the historical trend and
make
a
> decision based on that. It is in neither our best interests or that of
the
> constituency to quibble over something so statistically factual as
voter
> turn-out.
>
> In looking at the last 10 ballots that we undertook (the sum of all
voting
> through boardrooms.org) we averaged 20.9 voters. This includes the
amazing
> high of 41 voters for ballot #22 and the amazing low of 1 voter for
ballot
> #4. If we remove the top two and bottom two, the average falls to an
even
20
> voters. We've seen bylaws amendments passed by a turnout of 14
members,
> individuals elected to important positions with a turnout of 9 voters
and
> one of the most economically pressing issues in front of the
committee,
> transfers, was balloted multiple times with the largest turn-out being
only
> 21 members.
>
> These numbers only look at the most current six months. A review of
the
> Registrar Constituency mailing list archive paints an equally dismal
> picture. The fact is, regardless of the issue and absent extenuating
> circumstances, voter turnout is very poor. More than three years ago
around
> this time of the year you indicated on this mailing list that you had
strong
> concerns about the level of participation in the constituency. It
doesn't
> appear that the dynamic has substantially changed. This lack of change
> definitively illustrates why we should not be arbitrarily picking 50%
as a
> reasonable hurdle when in fact the average turnout for any votes that
we've
> had in the last six months are substantially lower than that 50%.
Setting
> the bar too high effectively paralyzes the constituency decision
making
> capability.
>
> Someone that has been around this constituency for a long time
recently
> stated that "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."
>
> We should listen to that advice.
>
> Regards,
>
>
>                       -rwr
>
>
> "There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore
like
an
> idiot."
>                 - Steven Wright
>
> Got Blog? http://www.byte.org
>
>
>
>
>
>