RE: [registrars] Re: [Registrars] Review of bylaws

[Elana Broitman <ebroitman@register.com>]

Ross - I don't want to make this one of those silly email strings that takes
everyone's time.  I added my comments separately, and it was Liz who
commented on your comments. 

We had discussed a wholesale review of bylaws for a long time in the
constituency as part of our discussion of an expanded ex.com.  

But, we don't need to have a long exchange over what has or hasn't been
proposed or discussed.  We can see how the constituency reacts to Liz's
drafting.

Best, Elana

-----Original Message-----
From: ross@tucows.com 
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 5:33 PM
Cc: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: [registrars] Re: [Registrars] Review of bylaws


Elana,

Thanks for sending this out to the wider list -  this is definitely a
discussion that the entire constituency should be participating in - I
wasn't quite clear on why the issue was initially presented so quietly.

Anyways to the issue - you seem to be misunderstanding my remarks.

> Clearly, the review of the bylaws with respect to NC elections is most
> time-sensitive and should proceed quickly.
>
> That being said, however, a more comprehensive review of the bylaws has
been
> under consideration since at least last Spring.  This is due, as I recall,
> to the interest in strengthening the constituency and to the opportunities
> to do so now that we have a strong exec. team in place and a number of new
> constituency members.  The next several months presents a good opportunity
> for us to make progress on several issues that can strengthen the
> constituency, and I don't see any reason not to begin that process
> (particularly when we have a drafting volunteer in Liz).


A re-read of my original comments will make it clear that a) my only real
concern with the proposition was that the timelines seemed rushed, b) that
it was my view that the proposal was attempted to mix too many issues
together thereby complicating the review process and c) that the review
should be conducted in accordance with the agenda and the goals of
individual constituency members- which implies a consultation with the
constituency prior to the review.

My comments were not made to discourage this effort, but rather to provide
constructive criticism concerning the proposed approach. Please also note
that I was not advocating "delay" but "care". A headstrong effort will not
serve to further our long-term goals - a careful, consultative and
considerate approach should be mandatory.

Frankly, I'm surprised that you would advocate an accelerated timeline on an
issue that has not even been formally presented to the constituency.

Lastly, the by-law clarification that you claim has been outstanding since
the spring has in fact been put to rest by an amendment which was ratified
by the constituency earlier this year - a quick search of the archives will
bear this out for you.

-rwr