RE: [registrars] Staff support for the constituency

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

>what value it brings beyond what Observer class participation offers.

A non-voting member would have all the other rights of a member,
including not getting thrown of a meeting when it is closed to
observers.

This relates to Bruce's idea of fees being based on names under
management, and to Rob's proposed amendment that all registrars be
allowed to join but if they can't vote, they don't pay dues.

Tim


-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 8:03 AM
To: tim@godaddy.com; Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au
Cc: jarcher@registrationtek.com; registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Staff support for the constituency

> I would suggest that there be two level of fees. One for members with
> voting rights, and one for non-voting members.

What does this arrangement get us? 

Personally, my preference would be to separate the discussion of staff
support from the discussion of membership structure. The question of
staff support can largely be addressed through an analysis of the costs.
At that point, the constituency can have a discussion of whether or not
we *want* to pay these additional fees and how we will pay for them (no
bake sales please).

The question of membership structure, OTOH, seems a little bit out of
the blue at this point. I'm very happy with the equality that is built
into the current drafts.  As my opening question implies, I'm not quite
sure what this additional level of complexity will add to our efforts
nor what value it brings beyond what Observer class participation
offers.

                       -rwr




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

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