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

[Jim Archer <jarcher@registrationtek.com>]

It would be easy to construct business relationships to get around this 
rule.  I think this needs to be more broad.


--On Monday, April 28, 2003 11:18 AM -0400 Joyce Lin <joyce@007names.com> 
wrote:

> 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-0417
> 03-
>> 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/
>>
>>