Re: [registrars] by-law ammendments
> I kindly ask the exec. committee to more directly state impacts of
> For example, it is unclear to me what I am approve or disapproving in item
> 4. What is the current practice?
Here's an interpretation from my perspective. Someone from the ExComm might
be able to provide a clearer explanation, but let me give it a shot.
***4. Proposed By-Law Amendment regarding participation in the Registrar
Current practice in this regard is inconsistent and unclear. My view is that
this amendment reinforces the de facto practices and represents no material
change - it appears to clarify the existing practice.
***5. Proposed By-Law Amendment: Regarding companies that own more than one
Current practice is to allow one vote per membership in the constituency.
Right now this means that organizations that have more than one
accreditation are eligible for more than one vote.
***6. Proposed By-Law Amendment: Disclosure of interests
The current by-laws do not specify that candidates must make any disclosures
of interests. As a result, the voluntary disclosures that we do see are
inconsistent. For instance, the disclosure that I put forward was DNSO wide,
the one that Ken Stubbs put forward only was limited to the Registrar
Constituency and his relationship with Afiias. A consistent disclosure
requirement will lead to a more informed vote. This is a departure from
existing practice, but ensures that the Constituency will not elect someone
with interests that substantially lie elsewhere like the Registry
***7. Registrars Meeting. Preferences for a meeting before the one in Ghana.
This is a one-off vote designed to establish the validity of a straw poll
held in Marina Del Rey at the ICANN AGM.
I hope this clarifies a bit. I can't speak to the process question that you
raise - I am sure someone from the ExComm will jump in shortly and provide