RE: [registrars] Diversity & the new Proposed Constituancy bylaws

[Paul Stahura <stahura@enom.com>]

Title: Message

Ken,

Are you saying that you believe people have less of a tendency to participate (or have an ambivalence) because they live in a certain region?

Regardless, I do not think that the solution to the ambivalence problem is to mandate that excom be constrained to people from certain geographical areas.

What I'm saying is that I believe that if you were to poll registrars on issues you'd see more of a correlation between

size (large vs. small registrars), then business model (reseller vs. retail), then other registrar attributes

(such as where your customers are located and which TLDs most of your names are registered in), and near last geographical.

I do agree that there are geographical *issues* (such as IP and privacy laws being geographical) but that that relevancy is diminished

because many (if not most) registrars have customers in *all* the geographical areas

even though the registrar may situate their company headquarters in one area.

I would guess that eNom is just as concerned about EU privacy issues as other registrars in Europe,

and I know my concern is based on the fact that eNom has customers in Europe, not because

our headquarters are in N. America. 

I would also guess that there is a correlation between ambivalency and registrar size.

So if you want to decrease ambivalence, you'd probably need to increase the size of that registrar.

Even though I think there is the above issue-attribute correlations, I'm also saying that I think, in this case,

it would be sub-optimal to mandate that the excom be made up of X registrars with this location/model/size

and Y registrars with that location/model/size.

Paul

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@digitel.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 11:05 AM
To: Paul Stahura; Registrars
Cc: Elana Broitman
Subject: Re: [registrars] Diversity & the new Proposed Constituancy bylaws

Paul,

 

What i see in the future is a need for emphasis on issues & their management to be more "global".

I believe that if you were to poll registrars and have them list those issues which were paramount in their minds at this time that there

would be a significant difference between  registrars in, say, Europe & the USA, for example..

 Many registrars i have talked to in Europe,  Australia, & asia  are dealing with serious 

"privacy issues" and the potential liability which attaches to them whereas i have seen little dialogue, except for Tucows, in this area from North American registrars.

 

Maybe you have some ideas as to how to deal with some of the "ambivalence" as I too share Ross's concerns about lack of participation.

 

I place some of these proposals out in public view  to stimulate discussion and hopefully to create a higher awareness of some of the constituency's "quieter issues".

 

 Ken

  

----- Original Message -----

From: Paul Stahura

To: 'Ken Stubbs' ; Registrars

Cc: Elana Broitman

Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 1:33 PM

Subject: RE: [registrars] Diversity & the new Proposed Constituancy bylaws

Ken,

 

I am for diversity.  I wish we had more of it.  More participation is good.

I do not think, though, that we can mandate or impose it.

I assume you are not suggesting we provide an incentive of some kind for

registrars from certain geographical regions to participate.

 

I strongly oppose artificial constraints on who can be elected to our constituency leadership.

I for one do not want to be forced to vote for a person who I beleive *does not* represent my

registrar's views when the person who I believe better represents those views is ineligable

becuase someone else from the same region has already been elected.

 

Especially when it is difficult enough to get people to run for the executive committee at all.

Besides, as you point out below, we already have this imposition at other levels at ICANN

to insure that the internet community from around the globe are duly represented, which, unfortunately,

raised its head even recently when it was pointed out to me that if one qualified person

(Michael) was elected, it would be difficult for another qualified person (Vint) to be elected

to the ICANN board since they are both from the same region of the planet.

 

I do not believe that many issues effecting our constituency divide us geographically,

which I believe is unlike ICANN that has more geographical-based issues (ccTLDs, etc.)

I believe issues our membership will be (and are) deciding naturally separate us 

more along economic lines that geographical lines.

If you want to artificially constrain our excom, why don't you suggest we have so many small registrars

and so many big registrars represented on the excom? This I believe would create more balanced

representation on excom than having all big registrars but just from different countries.

That would not be diverse, now would it? 

(Again, I oppose *any* artificial constraints).

 

Plus, I believe we still have this thing called "voting" in which every registrar has equal opportunity

to weigh in on issues no matter what their latitude and longitude combination may be.

 

Paul

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@digitel.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 7:55 AM
To: Registrars
Cc: Elana Broitman
Subject: [registrars] Diversity & the new Proposed Constituancy bylaws

Ross's recent observations :

 

" 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." 

 

are well taken.

 

It would appear to me that we have an opportunity with this by law revision to make a positive statement to all constituents

by including in the requirements for composition of the executive committee as well as including in "guidelines" for task force participants a

requirement for "global diversity" (as defined in the ICANN by-laws). I have noted at the various registrar meeting many competent parties representing registrars from all parts of the globe and believe that imposition of this Diversity guideline will encourage greater participation by these qualified parties.

 

Addition of this requirement & these task force participation guidelines to the by-laws  would result in the establishment of a more solid foundation for increased future "global participation" by more members of the constituency..

 

Over the next few years registrar issues are going to become much more "global centric"  (i.e. privacy just for starts) & it is essential that we have

globally-balanced direction from our executive committee. 

 

ICANN has already seen fit to require this with respect to constituency names council  representation,

 

Don't we think that it is a good time to implement this Diversity policy within our own constituency  ??

 

best wishes

 

ken stubbs