RE: [registrars] Proposed By-Law Amendment
I am not general counsel for PIR. PIR retains the law firm of Hale and Dorr.
Afilias outside counsel is Skadden as per the terms in the Registry
Registrar contract. I have been working with Afilias' outside counsel in
connection with some intellectual property matters but not in offical legal
capacity. The customer service people made a mistake. No black helicopter or
With regard to the registry constituency I do not participate in the their
calls, mailing list or meetings.
Rick I love the registrar constituency and don't plan on leaving anytime
soon until the constituency has voted me out :-)
Sorry Ross and Rick but this does appears like a witch hunt the more the
Ross and Rick Tag Team Continues.
P.S. Rick when I provided pro bono legal services to your company last year
I don't recall you worrying about any potential bias.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Wesson [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 2:46 PM
> To: Michael D. Palage
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Proposed By-Law Amendment
> comments in line.
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Michael D. Palage wrote:
> > Hello All:
> > Under this proposed wording of Ross' by-law amendment, not only
> would I have
> > to step down as chair of the registrar constituency but I would
> be precluded
> > from future participation in this constituency because in my
> capacity as a
> > consultant to Afilias I have assisted in accrediting registrars
> during the
> > launch of .info and the transition or .org. During this accreditation
> > process I had access to financial documents which were required for each
> > registrar's accreditation. After the initial accreditation, the
> day to day
> > financial operations are handled by the accounting types.
> If you were to step down I would call for immediate elections, as the only
> remaining and active excom member.
> > I submit that my access to Afilias' documents last year had no
> impact on my
> > leadership role, and the access to primarily the same documents one year
> > later in connection with PIR will have no similar impact.
> I just called 1877.4.dot.ORG and asked one simple question, "who is
> general council for PIR." The response I received is surprising. The
> persons response was "Michael Palage."
> As chair of the registrars constituency your allegiance should be for the
> registrars and I conclude that holding both the chairmanship of this
> constituency and the position of "General Council for PIR" are conflicting
> > If the registrars want me to cease participation in the registrar
> > constituency I have no problem with that. In fact I am up for
> reelection in
> > a couple of months. I just want people to know what they are
> voting for and
> > its potential impact.
> I think you need to choose who you want to represent and it can't be both
> registries and registrars in official capacity.
> > I guess I am a little defensive about the wording of a by-laws
> that would
> > preclude me from my continued participation within the
> constituency. I don't
> > consider it a witch hunt, just a poorly worded proposal that
> really doesn't
> > achieve what you are looking for.
> I would be defensive too, did you ever disclose per the constituency
> disclosure rules your position with PIR?