DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [registrars] by-law ammendments

Elana, Nikolaj, et al,

Each of these votes were brought up as a straw poll in MdR, with the
preface that they would not be binding until the entire constituency
had a chance to vote on them.  I believe it was clear that they would
be up for a vote.

However, your point that registrars not in attendence in MdR haven't
had the benefit of reviewing these topics is well taken.  Naturally,
in MdR, we only discussed them for about 10 minutes each before we
took the straw polls.  A 1-week voting period allows us much more
time to set out our various views.  Just my $0.02.

As for your question regarding which companies would be affected by
point #5, I haven't really looked into the details.  However, I do
know that Verisign and Allegiance Telecom (my firm) both own several
accredited registrars.  We own 3.  I hesitate to speak for Mr. Beckwith,
but I think they own 4, with a 5th pending (Bruce, I apologize if I'm
misspeaking).  Not all of these are members of the RC, of course.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Elana Broitman
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 7:47 AM
> To: 'Nikolaj Nyholm'; 'Registrars List'
> Subject: 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
> affected?
> 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.
> Best, Elana
> -----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 >>>