[registrars] Ballot

["Michael D. Palage" <mpalage@infonetworks.com>]

Listed below is the much talked about, much delayed Registrar Ballot.
Voting will close Friday Midnight EST. I will post the results to the list
ASAP.

Mike


Please vote for the following Names Counsel Nominees and the proposed
amendments to the By-Laws:

ISSUE #1

Summary: Amend Section IV of the by-laws to clarify the process for
membership voting in connection with elections. In the past elections this
issue has been hotly debated and I would like to clarify it in this voting
process. Please note that nothing would prevent someone from publicly
disclosing their vote to the list as a sign of support for their candidate.
For example during the ICANN board elections, the balloting was done in
secret. Additionally, in the past I have spoken with Andrew McLaughlin and
he stated that if there were ever a challenge to the secretariat's
tabulation of the votes, someone from ICANN would be available to review the
results.

Options: (Please indicate with an X in the appropriate box)

[ ] Voting should be private, both during and after the election. In this
scenario, only the raw results of the elections would be released, i.e
candidate A received X votes and candidate B received Y votes.

[ ] The voting results of how each member voted for the candidates must be
disclosed.


ISSUE #2

Summary: Amend Section III of the by-laws to provide for the recognition of
Registrar Constituency Task Forces. As described in my previous e-mails
these Task Forces, similar to the SLA Task Force, will be commissioned by
the constituency and tasked with conducting research on a specific topic of
interest to the constituency. These Task Forces will better enable the
constituency to stay abreast of the developments within the DNSO and ICANN
process.

Options: (Please indicate with an X in the appropriate box)

[ ]  Yes I support amending the by-laws to recognize Registrar Constituency
Task Forces

[ ]  No I oppose amending the by-laws to recognize Registrar Constituency
Task Forces

ISSUE #3

Summary: Amend section III of the by-laws by adding section III. 4. (e) to
reflect the proper chain of command whenever a Names Counsel member is
unable to participate in a Names Counsel meeting or teleconference. This was
a problem for this constituency during Amadeu's election to the board and it
has also been a problem for other constituencies as well.  For example,
during Jonathan Cohen run for the Board, an associate at his law firm held
his position and voting powers for an extended period of time.  It has been
propose that whenever a Name Counsel member is unable to participate in a NC
event that the secretariat assume these duties as being the only other
elected member from the Constituency.

Options: (Please indicate with an X in the appropriate box)

[ ]  I support creating a proper chain of command whenever a Names Counsel
Member is unable  to participate in an NC event.

[ ] A Names Counsel Member should be able to select whoever he/she desires
to vote on behalf of the constituency's interest.

[ ] If a Names Counsel Member is unavailable, no one should take his/her
position and the Registrars shall only be represented by those Names Counsel
members available.

NAMES COUNSEL VOTING:

Options: (Please indicate with an X in the appropriate boxes) - You are
allowed TWO votes

[ ] Erica Roberts (Melbourne IT)  (Asia Pacific)
[ ] Fracois Colligenon - (7 Ways) (Europe)
[ ] Paul Kane (RICS - Research Institute for Computer Science) (Europe)

NOTE: According to the by-laws you are not required to cast your vote for
two different geographical regional candidates. You can vote for two
candidates from the same region. Because of the regional diversity
requirements contained in the by-laws, Erica Roberts is guaranteed to win
one of the Names Counsel seats unless no ones votes for her. Let me be the
first to congratulate you Erica. The true race is between Fracois and Paul,
and a member may elect to vote for both if you so wish.