RE: [registrars] Request to Deny Multiple Votes/Registrar

["Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@register.com>]

So to fairly achieve the intent of the section - though not Tim's amendment, I guess it would need to be changed to state:

"Where 51% or more of the voting shares of more than one Member are owned by the same company, organization, or individual, including where a Member holds such ownership in another Member, such Members shall be limited to one (1) vote."

what do others think?

-----Original Message-----
From: halloran@icann.org 
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 6:54 PM
To: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Request to Deny Multiple Votes/Registrar


Tim and Ross,

I'm not expressing an opinion about which way this question should be
resolved, but it seems to me that the literal meaning of §4.5.1.3 creates a
result that neither of you intend.  The language of that section reads as
follows:  

	"Members shall have one vote. Only Members in good standing shall
have voting rights. Where a Member owns 51% or more of the voting shares of
one or more ICANN Accredited Registrars, that Member shall be limited to one
(1) vote."
<http://www.byte.org/rc-bylaws-wg/drafts/recent/gnso-rc-bylaws-draft-041703-
v3r0d0.doc> 

Since "members" are ICANN-Accredited Registrars (per §2.1), the limitation
to one vote applies in the first, but not the second, situation below:

	1) An ICANN-Accredited Registrar owns a majority of the stock of a
second ICANN-Accredited Registrar.

	2) Two ICANN-Accredited Registrars are owned by the same holding
company, or another situation of common control.

Do the draft bylaws intend to distinguish between these situations?

Best regards,
Dan


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf
Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: 25 April, 2003 12:48
To: ross@tucows.com; 'Registrars Mail List'
Cc: 'Registrars Executive Committee'
Subject: RE: [registrars] Request to Deny Multiple Votes/Registrar


Ross, while I appreciate your concerns, this just isn't the world we live
in. The current situation leaves registrars such as Wild West Domains at a
disadvantage as well.

No part of Wild West Domains is owned by Go Daddy Software. It operates
independently and only relies on Go Daddy's back end technology for it's
registrar services.

Wild West Domains is solely reseller focused while Go Daddy is completely
retail. However, it has little incentive to be involved in the RC since it
has no real opportunity to influence anything.

To continue to deny it membership simply because it has the same parent
company is short sighted, unrealistic, and a little bit paranoid.

Tim


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf
Of Ross Wm. Rader
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 12:20 PM
To: 'Registrars Mail List'
Cc: 'Registrars Executive Committee'
Subject: [registrars] Request to Deny Multiple Votes/Registrar


>> I'd like to see 1 vote per registrar, no matter  who owns them.


...and I would like to see anything *but* this.

Must we take another kick at this can?

The constituency has visited this issue many, many, many times in the past.
Each time it happens, we see those that hold multiple accreditations push
for multiple votes. And each time, we see the proposal defeated.

We just went through this just over a year ago so let me restate what I said
back then;

***Tucows strenuously opposes any proposal that provides any entity with
additional voting rights for any reason. Having a vibrant, representative
constituency precludes any bylaw amendment that would provide Register.com,
GoDaddy and Network Solutions with an estimated 10 votes between the three
of them. Adopting this very serious amendment will have the net effect of
substantially disadvantaging the majority of registrars. Faced with such a
strong political disadvantage would likely lead Tucows to seek additional
accreditations in order to level the playing field. An "accreditation race"
of this nature benefits no one. It is an appropriate and unfair way to run
our constituency.

Here's a refresher from the last time that we had this discussion (Palage,
February 21, 2002):

"As was originally voted upon last year and reaffirmed in the vote taken at
the start of the Dulles meeting, the spirit of original by-laws remains, one
vote per registrar parent company, regardless of the number of its
subsidiaries or accreditations it may acquire through the continued
consolidation occurring within the industry."

My formal request is that the executive committee deny any move to amend
this important element of the constituencies fundamental composition. 


                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/