[registrars] Variable Quorum requirements, variable time limits for ballots on various issues

["Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>]

At 09:57 AM 3/19/03 -0500, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> 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
> anyway.  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?

Dear Colleagues:  Please let me thrust my oar into this
dialogue;-)

1.  Michael Palage has proposed that the mandatory dues requirement
be dropped in the new By-Laws.  Doing so will increase the number of
eligible registrars.

2. Some ICANN Accredited Registrars may have a limited interest in our
deliberations.  Some may not be actively taking registrations at
all.  Some may not even be in business any more.  There needs
to be a vehicle to determine who is really out there and
interested.

3. I was faced with this problem when PAB was first formed.  All we
were given was a list of Email addresses of all signatories to the IAHC
MoU.  I sent mail to all (with return receipt requested), asking
that each actively reply (not relying upon the RR request).  After a
dwell time of about 3 weeks, we had some idea of the size of our
"Universe" of active PAB members.  As I remember it, it
was about 50, about one-third of the number of signatories.

4. I propose that we use a similar system to quantify the universe of
active, interested ICANN Accredited Registrars.  In so doing, the
time period for response needs to be much more than one week.

5. That said, this consideration suggests that there is a second variable
we can apply to votes on major issues such as By-Law changes.  I
suggest that the quorum percentage *and* time period that the ballot is
kept open be larger for such major issues.  Mike's attached proposed
amendment to Brian's motion on Bulk Transfers suggests such a
mechanism.  Further, when we want to establish a policy on an issue
of great importance, the percentage of voters participating will be seen
a measure of our credibility on the issue at hand.

Oar back in my canoe.  (It's really a "paddle", not an
oar;-)

Regards, BobC

Attachment:

Subject: [registrars] Bulk Whois Ballot
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:34:08 -0500

Brian:

Thank you for sending this proposed ballot and supporting documentation
to
the Registrar Executive Committee. I will ask Rick to create a ballot
with
an extended voting window (2 weeks) on this
proposal.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Next to knowing when to seize an opportunity, the most important
thing in life is to know when to forego an advantage".

Disraeli