Re: [registrars] Answers to Bob Connelly's Concerns

["Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>]

At 20:50 19-02-2000 -0500, Michael D. Palage wrote:

>Although I respect Bob Connelly, I personally disagree with his opinions and
>have obtained guidance from ICANN's legal counsel, Louie Tuton, on how to
>proceed in this matter. For those that are interested in this ongoing saga
>read on. For those that will be casting votes, for reasons set forth below,
>I hereby excuse myself from any further involvement in this NC run-off
>election. Either Erica or Ken will tabulate and announce the winner.
>
>Connelly Concern #1 - "Mystery By-Laws"
>
>The "by-laws" which I have referred to during the last two ballots are the
>Registrar Constituency by-laws (a.k.a. Constituency Articles) which we
>drafted and adopted in Berlin. These can be located on-line at
>http://www.dnso.org/constituency/registrars/Registrars.Articles.html .

Dear Michael:

And I, too, admire you for your abilities.

Since you are a barrister, I know you realize that documents such as 
by-laws. Articles of Association and constitutions are signed by those 
forming the association and are accepted by those joining it after the 
fact.  They are dated at some point.

The document posted above lacks official "dignity" as it is devoid of a 
date. It would also normally have some statement of who signed it.  If, as 
you state, we drafted these by-laws and accepted them in Berlin, one would 
expect the date of acceptance to be shown.  I find no such indication on 
the document.  I believe several of us did sign them before departing from 
Berlin.

Let's look at some of the provisions:

IV Voting

1. Registrar Constituency members shall have one vote per member, 
irrespective of the size or the number of domain names registered.

2. Registrar Constituency members will have the ability to vote via a proxy 
arrangement.

3. Observers shall have no voting rights.

end quote:

Thus, the by-laws were moot on the point of the time for 
elections.  However, I remember Amadeu stating in open session that it 
should not be less than one week and that the nominations should not take 
less than one week.  Thus, we recognized that our Constituency would not be 
able to participate in the first meetings of the NC (other Constituencies 
were already in place by the end of the Berlin meeting.)

I am puzzled by the fact that you have repeatedly ignored my reference to 
the Email of Andrew dated 31 May 1999, immediately after the close of our 
Berlin meetings:

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Robert F. Connelly <rconnell@psi-japan.com>
À : mclaughlin@pobox.com <mclaughlin@pobox.com>
Cc : registrar@registrar.icann.org <registrar@registrar.icann.org>
Date : lundi 31 mai 1999 13:09
Objet : Re: [registrar] FW: Names Council elections

 >At 10:08 31-05-99 +0200, Andrew McLaughlin wrote:
 >
 >>Hi all, whenever you get this mail.
 >>
 >>According to the Registrar Consituency Charter we will elect the three
DNSO
 >>Naems Council reps (as provided by ICANN bylaws) using a two weeks
election
 >>timeline, one for nominations and one for voting.

Andrew refers to a "Registrar Constituency Charter".  Was there not such a 
Charter?  If not, you can take the wind out of my sails by so 
stating.  Until Andrew or Louis show me that none existed, I shall continue 
to accept their applicability to this election.

>The issues that I have put forth on the last two ballots are issues that 
>are not
>specifically set forth in the Registrars by-laws.

Agreed.  But they are supposedly in the "Charter".


>Connelly Concern #2 - "Voting Time Frame"
>
>I strongly believe Bob has wrongly accused me of "ignoring" of the
>Constituency by-laws and has alluded to the fact that I closed the ballot
>prematurely because of my dissatisfaction of the outcome.

Please re read my posting.  I suggested that you *were* satisfied with the 
results at the four day period and that you *may not have been satisfied* 
with the results at the seven day time frame.

>  Addressing these
>concerns in order. I set the original voting time table after consulting
>with Ken Stubbs, the only other elected Registrar representative at that
>time. The time table was set taking into account that we wanted to have the
>representatives in place by last weeks NC teleconference. The nomination
>process for these NC seats went on for the last several months since the LA
>meeting.  I closed the voting on Friday midnight as originally announced NOT
>because I was unhappy with the results. I have previously acknowledged that
>I was delayed in starting the election because of reasons already discussed.

It does not do any good to run if you don't start on time.


>I would also like to point out that there were other registrars that
>submitted a vote after the deadline which I also properly refused to record.
>
>The current election is being held for seven days, which Bob Connelly
>himself has admitted is a proper time frame.

"Admitted"!  I *insist* that it is the proper time --- and always_has_been!!!

So, in closing again, I ask for your comments on Andrew's posting.  Is it 
valid or is it not?

BobC