RE: [registrars] Proposed amendments to our bylaws

["Rob Hall" <rob@momentous.com>]

Elana,

That is the first anyone has suggested I need one, but I guess it makes
sense.

Therefore I ask the constituency to please second my motions, so that we may
proceed to debate and a vote.

Rob.

-----Original Message-----
From: Elana Broitman [mailto:ebroitman@register.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 11:02 AM
To: Rob Hall; Registrars Mail List
Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed amendments to our bylaws


ps - do you have a second for these?

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 10:50 AM
To: 'Registrars Mail List'
Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed amendments to our bylaws


Ross,

I believe the process is indeed that a vote on each of these will be held,
unless you and Elana decide they are "friendly" and no vote is required.

I also understand from Elana's earlier email, that several of my other
suggestions previously presented have been incorporated into the new bylaws.
If this is not the case, please let me know, and I will make additional
motions as needed.

Rob.



-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 10:40 AM
To: 'Rob Hall'; 'Elana Broitman'; 'Registrars Mail List'
Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed amendments to our bylaws


Rob - some comments...

2.1 and 4.3.1 have already been ratified by a vote of the constituency
for acceptance into the bylaws.  I believe that there would need to be
an affirmative vote of the constituency to defeat that prior motion in
order to amend these and related clauses.

2.3 - Non-Registered representatives have very limited rights in
relation to Registered representatives - voting is but one area in which
these are different. My preference would be to leave this one as is for
the sake of clarity.

2.4 - The bylaws are silent regarding whether this information is
available to members only, ICANN participants only or everyone in
general. The basic concept is that we need a voting roster that is
available to the membership and is authoritative at all times. I don't
have any preference whether this is available to other parties for other
uses but definitely see your concern here.

3.4.4.5 - The drafting committee recognized that one of the positions
should be clearly defined as the "back-up chair" but that this likely
didn't represent enough work to create an additional position. The chair
responsibilities of the CTO is extremely secondary to their purpose in
the constituency, but clearly stating so sets a precedent in the bylaws
that can be used to sort out what happens in the odd situation that the
actual chair is not able to fulfill their responsibilities.

4.2.1 - We should probably just add the word "physical" to precede
"meetings" - it wasn't the intention to include teleconferences in this
but was certainly the intention to ensure that the membership had
adequate notice and planning time before a meeting was held.





                       -rwr




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

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