RE: [registrars] Staff support for the constituency

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

Ross,

I haven't got a clue what you're talking about. The currently proposed
draft allows ALL registrars to be Members. However, there is a
restriction on the voting when considering the ownership issue. I don't
think it needs to be any more complicated than that, and didn't intend
to suggest otherwise.

I also want to be involved in an effective RC. It cannot be truly
effective, or representative, if it attempts to limit full participation
of ALL qualified, accredited registrars.

Tim


-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 9:11 AM
To: 'Tim Ruiz'; Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au
Cc: jarcher@registrationtek.com; registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Staff support for the constituency

[Responses to a couple of threads on the same topic merged together.]

> 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.

It is theoretically interesting, but we have open meetings, open lists,
open, open, open, etc. Creating an additional class of members just
sounds like more administrative complexity and less productive work.

Elana brings up the point of subsidization in another message. To that
point, I only ask what level of participation non-members should have.
This isn't a social club. I want to be involved in a constituency that
can deal with GNSO policy considerations effectively. I'm concerned that
if we create a non-voting class of members then we will have to create
participatory structures that takes these non-voting views into account.
In a purely democratic model, the vote itself is the ultimate expression
of participation.

If my vote doesn't matter, then I'll just use this mailing list and
air-time at the meeting to get my non-voting points across.

The constituency has a very limited mandate - we should be striving for
relevant simplicity that supports our efforts.

To the point that you raise in your very last message - I don't think
that it is the intention of this draft to limit the participation of
those Members that cannot vote because of ownership issues. If for
instance Wildwest and Godaddy wants to appoint two people to sit at the
table, then so be it. My concerns (and prior points) are solely limited
to what I perceive to be a proposal to create a new class of Non-Voting
Members (as opposed to the current de facto classes of Voting Members
and Restricted Voting Members).



                       -rwr




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

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