[registrars] RE: ICANN By-Laws and My status as Chair

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

Mike - 
a) thank you for the clarification
b) if you are insinuating something about the "coordinated" emails, you would be wrong and inappropriate
c) my involvement in Afilias was never as a board member and I NEVER had any sensitive information; moreover it was well over 12 months ago.

This is starting to sound very personal on your part and I'd appreciate it if you would act professionally on this list.

Regards, Elana

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 4:31 PM
To: Elana Broitman; ross@tucows.com
Cc: Registrars List
Subject: ICANN By-Laws and My status as Chair


Elana:

For clarification your assumption is WRONG.

Under article XX, Section 2 paragraph 5 of the ICANN by-laws
(http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm) my term as Director does not begin
until " the ICANN Secretary has received written notice of the selection of
Directors to fill at least ten of Seats 1 through 14 on the New Board."
Hopefully  this will happen at the conclusion of the Montreal meeting.

Therefore, I am still the acting Chair of the Registrar Constituency.
However, I most compliment you and Ross on your timely and some what
coordinated emails. Almost as timely and coordinated as when I nominated Rob
Hall for Chair, and within minutes Ross was asking for a list of members in
good standing. I am glad you both seconded his nomination so there would be
no confusion.

While we are on the topic of clarification, I still do not believe that you
have answered my questions about your role in RegistryPro's ccTLD program.
Since these ccTLDs were acquired by Afilias would you object if I was to ask
Afilias what role you played, if any, and what type of information you had
access to, if any? I believe a third party verification would help remove
any doubt as to your compliance with the new by-laws.

Mike



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elana Broitman [mailto:ebroitman@register.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 4:12 PM
> To: Michael D. Palage; ross@tucows.com
> Cc: Registrars List
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Re: Not so fast Rick!!!!! Hold off on the
> election
>
>
> Mike - for clarification, are you now simultaneously a
> representative of the GNSO on the ICANN Board?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 4:00 PM
> To: ross@tucows.com
> Cc: 'Registrars List'
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Re: Not so fast Rick!!!!! Hold off on the
> election
>
>
> Ross,
>
> Seeing how I am STILL the Chair of the Registrar Constituency
> would you mind
> sending me a copy of your analysis, or for that fact sending it to the
> entire list. I am not proposing throwing out the by-laws but Jim
> Archer has
> raised the question of whether the by-laws were properly posted. If they
> were not properly posted how could they be followed.
>
> Mike
>
> P.S. Would trying to deny the only person that expressed interest
> in running
> for a position constitute a "witch hunt" under the criteria you described
> last week?
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 3:38 PM
> > Cc: 'Registrars List'
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] Re: Not so fast Rick!!!!! Hold off on the
> > election
> >
> >
> > > I understand the by-laws revision was intended to remove ambiguity and
> > > provide a black and white definition. However, common sense
> > > would seem to
> > > argue that if someone wants to run for a position no one else
> > > is interested
> > > in, we should consider letting that person run.
> >
> >
> > While allowing for practical exceptions at the edge is prudent (ie -
> > there aren't yet any Registrar Representatives, therefore all
> > nominations are invalid), we should try to follow through on what the
> > bylaws actually say as closely as possible. I've sent Rick an analysis
> > of what the appropriate courses of action are - I've no doubt that he'll
> > make a reasonable decision. It would be a tragedy to throw out the
> > bylaws as being inconvenient this early in the game - let's stick it out
> > a little bit further and see what we learn about our constitution.
> >
> > Consider this set of events precedent #1. :)
> >
> >
> >                        -rwr
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
> > idiot."
> > - Steven Wright
> >
> > Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/
> >
>
>