[registrars] Current Ballot -- Issue #8
To help clarify Issue #8 regarding eligibility for elected offices, I have
attached a couple of emails that were sent to the RC Task Force mailing list
when the issue originally arose.
As I understand it, the language and intention of Option A(2) will not
prevent anyone who is currently eligible for constituency offices from
running for office, it simply would require that all candidates have the
endorsement of an operational registrar in their nomination. This is
intended as a safeguard to the registrars that are actively registering
names, without limiting the involvement of constituency members whose
registrar businesses may not be operational.
I hope this helps.
Assistant Manager, Policy and Public Affairs
Tim: thoughts on structure:
Paremeters to be determined:
1) Include flexibility for the future that the Chairs don't have to be from
the registrars necessarily (the Professional Association model, where those
that make up the Association are not necessarily employees of the group
they represent (i.e., registrar employees).
2) Is it open to all? (Benchmark should be that you are at least fully
accredited, not just accepted but not fully accredited)
3) Is the goal/purpose to be issues driven, political force, what??
4) Define who can be elected:
How do we elect the representatives?
Must they be an existing employee of a registrar?
Are consultants ok?
Do we care?
How is the electing/voting for positions done? people put up one page bios?
What happens if the elected person leaves the company or is no longer
employed by a registrar? (i.e., the Erica Roberts issue with the Names
If small and large capacity registrar representatives, what defines
1 vote per company?
Must be in good standing (dues paid) in order to vote?
[What happens if dues aren't paid]?
we don't want to be taken over by non-operational registrars; don't want to
be taken over by big business either.
7) Positions: do they vote on anything like the Names Council does? If they
carry power/decision on behalf of the constituency, this could be a problem;
the operational registrars have to be protected.
8) Chair, Large Cap, Small Cap Reps must be operational as a qualification
for election. Chair could be debatable, but not the registrar rep. Other
positions don't need to be operational registrars, but one could argue that
the Tech should be, and Communications Outreach, as experience as an
operational registrar makes issues more real.
I apologize for the somewhat scattered message, but trust you can
re-organize it to suit your needs.
From: Timothy M. Denton [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 9:41 AM
To: Registrars Constituency Task Force
Cc: Ross Wm. Rader
Subject: ICANN - Registrar Constituency
As regards the nature of jobs/positions to be created in the ICANN registrar
group, a suggestion has been made that there be two reps for registrars: one
for those managing less than 500,000 names, the other for registrars
managing more than 500,000 registries.
1. Is this division set at the approporiate number?
2. Larger question: Is what is being proposed a Board of directors? What is
the structure that will contain and organize these posts? Will we seek
3. Should incorporation of something precede or accompany the creation of
As you know, I inadvertently omitted some comments in taking notes of the
last RCTF teleconference. Unfortunately, Maureen was particularly affected
by this mistake as none of her comments made it into the record. In an
effort to repair this mistake, I would like to submit the following comments
by Maureen as an amendment to the record of the teleconference.
Thank you for your understanding in this matter.
During the Registrar Constituency Task Force teleconference on January 9,
2001, Maureen Rupert contributed the following comments:
1) concerning whether to incorporate: that we should allow or include
flexibility in the structure so that going forward, the RC may or may not
require that members be from active registrars (I used the analogy of other
types of Associations, where those who work for it are not necessarily the
people themselves from the specific organization).
2) I brought up the issue of parameters of membership:
define who can be elected--current employees? consultants? (do we care)?
How is voting done? Is it open to all? How do we elect the representatives
(list bot/bios posted, etc.?) What happens if someone leaves the company
(like when Erica Roberts left Melbourne IT yet remained on the NC)? Do these
people vote and thus speak for registrars as a whole? What happens if an
officer is from a registrar that hasn't paid its dues? Must they be in good
standing in order to keep their position? What about disclosure statements?
I commented that if they carry the power of decision on behalf of the
registrar constituency then the operational registrars have to be
protected--we can't have AT&T or other big businesses taking over. The main
issue of concern is whether these board members have any power to vote on
anything like the NC does that can uniformly affect registrars.
3) I also raised the issue in connection with Mike Palage's strong feelings
that there should be a large and small capacity registrar representative
that if there indeed is a feeling "out there" by the smaller registrars that
they feel unrepresented (that is, if there is a PR problem of sorts), then
perhaps we should consider having 2 separate reps on the Board. However, I
suggested that the RC should be issues driven and, as such, issues should
transcend the size of a registrar. On the other hand, whether a registrar is
operational or not is probably more significant--which ties in with Bruce
Beckwith's comment about how new registrars coming on board face issues that
the "older" registrars have already dealt with. However, I wouldn't
necessarily agree that NOT having a small cap registrar representative is a
bad idea and thought that that issue could be put to a vote to decide
(meaning it should perhaps be included in what goes out to the registrars in
4) On the Code of Conduct/Best Practices, I countered Mike Palage's
comments the document was determined solely by "a few registrars modifying
the language" and stated that many of us agreed and found over time that
some of the issues we thought needed addressing in the CoC became moot over
time out of sheer experience, and that's why they got dropped out--not
because a few registrars decided they should come out but rather they became
moot and there was agreement about that. All registrars can speak up at any
of these meetings or by email, so there shouldn't be a denial of
Assistant Manager, Policy and Public Affairs