RE: [registrars] Staff support for the constituency

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

Call it whatever you like, as long as ALL accredited registrars are
permitted to be Members, it is workable. We are willing to accept that
there will be Members who will have only one vote as a group due to the
ownership issue. If there is any intent to limit Membership based on
ownership, then these bylaws will not have our support.

Tim


-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 9:29 AM
To: 'Tim Ruiz'; Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au
Cc: jarcher@registrationtek.com; registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Staff support for the constituency

> I haven't got a clue what you're talking about. The currently proposed
> draft allows ALL registrars to be Members.

> 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.

Yes - this is precisely my point - but we don't need multiple classes of
membership to achieve this. Members and Non-members suffice. Either you
are qualified and participate or you aren't and don't...

Its very black and white as far as I see it. Lets keep the structure and
the bylaws simple.


                       -rwr




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

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


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] 
> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 11:24 AM
> To: ross@tucows.com; Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au
> Cc: jarcher@registrationtek.com; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Staff support for the constituency
> 
> 
> 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/
> 
> 
>