RE: [registrars] by-law ammendments
Dear Nikolaj - you raise an important point. While these issues were
discussed in Marina del Rey, it was not clear that they were going to be up
for a vote. Many registrars, particularly those not at MdR, may not have
considered these issues. For example, on #5, I do not understand the current
effect of prohibiting companies to vote twice if they wholly own or own 51%+
of another registrar. Which companies or how many would be currently
The ex.com. might consider putting off the vote on the non-NC items until
opportunity for list discussion, if that is not to difficult. The one item
that seems very straight forward, however, is the pre-Ghana meeting.
As for #4, there was support at MdR for disclosure of financial interests
(associated with consulting or employment contracts) in order to judge our
elected representatives' motivations and ability to serve the community.
This is common practice in the real world - and seems like a good idea to
import into the constituency. Even if this change isn't voted on
immediately, Ross, Ken, and the ex.com. have essentially complied with the
change at this point by posting their disclosures. You can review them on
the RC site.
From: Nikolaj Nyholm [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 5:41 AM
To: 'Registrars List'
Subject: [registrars] by-law ammendments
Dear Exec. Committee,
I was quite surprised to receive our ballot this morning - I do not believe
that it has been disclosed that we were voting on anything but NC
I do not believe that there has been a formal process of placing other votes
on the agenda - or am I not following list traffic closely enough?
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?
Thank you in advance.