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

["Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@register.com>]

yes but in case 2, if B and C were registrars, they could each have a vote

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Paul Stahura [mailto:stahura@enom.com] 
	Sent: Mon 4/28/2003 6:12 PM 
	To: Registrar Constituency 
	Cc: 
	Subject: RE: [registrars] Request to Deny Multiple Votes/Registrar
	
	

	If Registrar 1 was 51% owned by entity A, and 49% by entity B 
	And Registrar 2 was 51% owned by entity B, and 49% by entity A 
	That would be two registrars/votes under the proposed bylaws, correct? 

	And if Registrar 1 was 51% owned by entity A, and 49% by entity B 
	And Registrar 2 was 51% owned by entity A, and 49% by entity C 
	That would be one registrar/vote, right? 

	I just want to make sure I understand it. 

	If that's it, I'm OK with it.  
	One issue I foresee is to know/verify/disclose who owns what. 
	But I think we can deal with that. 

	Paul 

	PS 
	extra credit question: 
	What if entity A is a registry?  

	Just kidding...   :>) 



	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Robert F. Connelly [mailto:rconnell@psi-japan.com] 
	Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 10:35 AM 
	To: Registrar Constituency 
	Subject: RE: [registrars] Request to Deny Multiple Votes/Registrar 


	At 09:24 AM 4/28/03 -0400, Elana Broitman wrote: 
	>"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? 

	Dear Elana:  Sounds good to me:-)   Regards, BobC 



	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
	"Next to knowing when to seize an opportunity, the most important 
	thing in life is to know when to forego an advantage". 

	Disraeli