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

["Joyce Lin" <joyce@007names.com>]

I don't recall that we specified the "51% or more of the shares"  to "voting
shares".

Joyce



----- Original Message -----
From: "Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@register.com>
To: <halloran@icann.org>; <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 9:24 AM
Subject: RE: [registrars] Request to Deny Multiple Votes/Registrar


> 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/
>
>