<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] by-law ammendments
Anthony,
For the record, NameEngine's ballot was NOT sent to me.
Please see the "Membership List" spreadsheet at
http://www.icann-registrars.org/.
I did receive three ballots, since I am the listed contact )or have the
voting proxy) for the VeriSign Registrar, NameSecure, and Registrars.com.
One of the ballots is copied for reference below.
Regards,
Bruce
-----Original Message-----
From: regvote@ns2.beach.net [mailto:regvote@ns2.beach.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 8:01 PM
To: bbeckwith@verisign.com
Subject: Registrar Constituency Ballot (1st Call for Votes)
ID: ***********
The ID above is new to VoteBot and will help identify corrupted ballots.
This is your ballot for "Registrar Constituency Ballot".
The voting period is from Dec 12, 2001 00:00 GMT to Dec 19, 2001 23:59 GMT.
The ballot must be returned to regvote@registrars.beach.net With most
mailers, simply replying to this message will do the right thing.
The following issues are coverd by this ballot. Please read the issue
descriptions here and vote where the issue is summarized below.
1-3. Please cast up to three votes for the Names Council Candidates,
The Candidates are listed alphabetically, with their geographic region
included in parentheses. You may only vote once per candidate.
4. Proposed By-Law Amendment rearding participation in the Registrar
Mailing List:
All ICANN accredited registrars will be eligible for participation in the
DNSO Registrar Mailing List, however, only those Registrars Constituency
members whose dues are fully paid will be entitled to voting rights.
5. Proposed By-Law Amendment: Regarding companies that own more
than one ICANN-accredited registrars:
Option 1: Where a company wholly owns one or more ICANN Accredited
Registrars, that company shall be limited to one vote on Constituency voting
matters.
Option 2: Where a company owns more than 51% of the voting shares of one or
more ICANN Accredited Registrars, that company shall be limited to one vote
on Constituency voting matters. Option 3: There should be no limits on a
company's voting rights in the Registrars' constituency regardless of how
many accredited registrars the company owns, as long as all the fees owing
for each registrar have been paid.
6. Proposed By-Law Amendment: Disclosure of interests
All Executive Committee members, Names Council Representatives, and
appointees of the Registrars' Constituency to Task Forces, and candidates to
elected positions within the Registrars' Constituency, shall disclose all
contracts of employment or personal services, to any company,organization or
persons which are members of constituencies within DNSO. This statement
shall be made at the time of acceptance of nomination or appointment,
whichever is first, and shall be updated quarterly to reflect any changes to
it. The disclosure shall be forwarded to the Secretary of the Constituency,
who shall forthwith publish it to the Registrars' Constituency website. The
person making the disclosure shall also publish it to the icann-registrars
list serve.
7. Registrars Meeting. Preferences for a meeting before the one in
Ghana
In Marina del Rey, a straw poll revealed that there would be a light turnout
for the Accra Ghana meeting. In light of the growing workload confronting
the Constituency it was proposed that the registrars hold a pre-Ghana
meeting. Informal discussions have centered around an US East Coast meeting
in the beginning of February.
Important Note:
There are three votes for representatives, however you may only cast one
vote for any individual. Voting for the same candidate more than once will
invalidate your vote.
Please mark your selections in each category by placing an X between the
[]s, e.g. [x].
Please do _not_ edit the ballot beyond indicating your choice.
[1. Your first Names Council representative]
[] Philipp Grabensee (Europe)
[] Ross Rader (NorthAM)
[] Ken Stubbs (NorthAM)
[] Bruce Tonkin (Asia-Pac)
[2. Your second Names Council representative]
[] Philipp Grabensee (Europe)
[] Ross Rader (NorthAM)
[] Ken Stubbs (NorthAM)
[] Bruce Tonkin (Asia-Pac)
[3. Your third Names Council representative]
[] Philipp Grabensee (Europe)
[] Ross Rader (NorthAM)
[] Ken Stubbs (NorthAM)
[] Bruce Tonkin (Asia-Pac)
[4. Approve the By-Law amendment re. mailing list participation and voting]
[] Approve
[] Disapprove
[] Abstain
[5. By-Law amendment concerning voting by registrars with multiple
companies]
[] Option 1
[] Option 2
[] Option 3
[] Abstain
[6. By-Law Amendment: Disclosure of interests]
[] Approve
[] Disapprove
[] Abstain
[7. Registrars Meeting. Preferences for a meeting before the one in Ghana]
[] Approved in principle
[] Approved but need more information
[] Not interested in a pre-Ghana meeting
[] Approved but want a different location
[] Other
END OF BALLOT
-----Original Message-----
From: Antony Van Couvering [mailto:avc@nameengine.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 9:17 AM
To: Nikolaj Nyholm; Registrars List
Subject: RE: [registrars] by-law ammendments
Nikolaj,
If you are correct, then someone has foolishly relied on the telegraphic
style of the press to make decisions which actually require finer
definitions. VeriSign has agreed to acquire NameEngine, but all the
formalities are not yet complete. Furthermore, NameEngine was not given any
notice about changes in balloting.
I await a response from a responsible member of the constituency. If
NameEngine's ballot has been sent to Bruce, the vote is improper.
Antony
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nikolaj Nyholm [mailto:nikolajn@ascio.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 9:02 AM
> To: Antony Van Couvering; 'Registrars List'
> Subject: RE: [registrars] by-law ammendments
>
>
> Dear Tony,
>
> Your's was sent to Bruce. ;)
>
> Best
> Nikolaj
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Antony Van Couvering [mailto:avc@nameengine.com]
> > Sent: 12. december 2001 14:58
> > To: Nikolaj Nyholm; Registrars List
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] by-law ammendments
> >
> >
> > And I was quite surprised to see Nikolaj's note, but no
> > ballot. Have all the ballots been sent? It is irregular
> > that some registrars have received ballots while other can
> > only read comments about them.
> >
> > Antony
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Nikolaj Nyholm [mailto:nikolajn@ascio.com]
> > > 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
> > > representatives.
> > > 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
> > > ammendments.
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > Kindest regards
> > > Nikolaj Nyholm
> > >
> > >
> >
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|