RE: [registrars] Draft Registrar Position Paper on Restructuring

["Rob Hall" <rob@momentous.ca>]

Michael,

You are making my argument for me.

We don't need seats on the nominating committee that nominates the
independant members to the policy council.  What you have documented is that
the nomination committee will be the same people that have the guaranteed
spots on the policy council.  This will not lead to more independence, just
the opposite.

I agree whole heartedly with Ross ... but your proposal seems to be the
opposite to this.

I am concerned, as I am not sure where our differences are coming from.  You
participated in the same call.  Unless I am losing my mind, what you have
documented is not what we discussed.

As you suggest, I will mark up your version.  I don't think a 'pick one'
type of vote is warranted.  On the call I was impressed with the almost
unanimous consensus that was reached ... we just need to document what that
was.

Rob.



-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 5:34 PM
To: Rob Hall; Registrars Mail List
Subject: RE: [registrars] Draft Registrar Position Paper on
Restructuring


Rob,

I welcome your version. However, I believe the key factor for the Policy
Council was to have independent neutral seats. That is why the version that
was put forth to the constituency calls for the Board of Trustees to fill
these seats. Same result with one Board and one nominating committee, as
opposed to one Board and two nominating committees.

Maybe you know a lot of people that would like to have a fancy title. I
think Ross summed this up rather accurately during the last call. If we have
one Registrar Names Council rep that does his/her job well, what is the
benefit of having three. Quality not quantity is the key. If we trust a
qualified Board to make an ultimate decision than that same qualified Board
should be able to select neutral people.

I revised this document 5 times after receiving input from the executive
committee. As I stated before I await your version. Perhaps we could put
both forward for a vote if we cannot reconcile the differences during our
next call.

Mike



-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 5:05 PM
To: Michael D. Palage; Registrars Mail List
Subject: RE: [registrars] Draft Registrar Position Paper on
Restructuring


But Michael, don't you remember our conversations, especially about 'people
with contracts with ICANN'

On the call we discused 2 different nomination committees, as they need to
serve two very different purposes.

In fact, we even discussed at length the fact that the nomination committee
for the policy council should NOT have all the different representatives on
it that you have suggested, as this committee was to pick the 'independent'
people to the council, and that parties that had a direct vote to a seat,
such as registrars, did not need a seat on it.

I am baffled by where this draft came from.

I will take a crack at what I think was discussed and by and large agreed to
on our call.

Rob.

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 4:57 PM
To: Rob Hall; Registrars Mail List
Subject: RE: [registrars] Draft Registrar Position Paper on
Restructuring


Rob,

Let me check. I have had so many draft and recommendations flow through my
inbox. The Exec Committee approved this latest draft, although it is by no
means final. My concern about selecting TWO Nominating committees is that it
is only doubling the opportunity for large vested entities to stack the
deck. Although no single point of failure is a good thing for the Internet,
multiple Nominating Committees is in my opinion more of a liability than a
benefit.

If the nominating committee is balanced either them or the Board could
select the policy council neutral representatives. In fact, I believe it was
discussed in DC that the Nominating Committee would be representative of all
Internet Stakeholders.

Feel free to mark up this proposal, and make recommendations. We will
probably have another call next week before signing off on this document.

Mike





-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Rob Hall
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 3:26 PM
To: Registrars Mail List
Subject: RE: [registrars] Draft Registrar Position Paper on
Restructuring


Mike,

I think you have described the POLICY council nomination committee, not the
BOARD nomination committee.  Can you rework the doc so this is clearer that
there will be 2 seperate nomination committees, and the structure of the
board one we discussed.

As I recall, it was to be roughly  5 at large, 5 government and 5 by those
who have contracts with ICANN, as well as one or two non-voting current
board members (who's term is not expiring).  The entire idea was to get away
from the DNSO quagmire that we see now, and to eliminate the politicing and
horse trading that goes on.

Rob.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 2:21 PM
To: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: [registrars] Draft Registrar Position Paper on Restructuring
Importance: High


Hello All:

The Registrar Constituency has undertaken the following activities in
connection with the current ICANN restructuring discussion:

Introduction to restructuring discussion during our meeting in Dulles prior
to Accra (approximately 40 registrars in attendance);
Discussion in Accra during Registrar meeting (approximately 10-15 registrars
in attendance);
Two constituency wide telephone conferences on restructuring (approximately
10-15 registrars participating in each);
Two Registrar Executive Committee calls on the subject (4-5 Exec Committee
members)
Joint Registrar/Registry meeting in DC with Joe Sims (6 registrar
representatives);
Teleconferences between select registrars that volunteered to serve on
Registrar Constituency Restructuring Task Force.

Based on this collective outreach, the Registrar Executive Committee has
drafted the following position paper that it believes is representative of
the collective viewpoints expressed by most registrars. This paper will be
posted for a brief comment period. Depending upon community feedback we may
host another call to finalize the document if necessary.

This is an important issue and we urge all registrars to read this document
carefully.

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage

on behalf of the Registrar Executive Committee.