[registrars] RE: Proposed Ballot
As I recall, Thomas Keller from Schlund began to draft some by-laws that dealt with voting procedures at the ICANN meeting in Shanghai.
For example, I suggest we determine how many people are required to vote in favour of a change in by-laws, and how many people are required to vote to form a "consensus position" amongst registrars.
To approve new by-laws it might be prudent to have at least a majority of members vote in favour. ie if we have 40 members, than perhaps 21 members should vote in favour.
To put a motion to vote, it might be prudent to require at least 10 members to support the motion.
An email vote should could be held over a 14 day period - to ensure most registrars get the chance to learn about the motion and form an appropriate opinion. Physical meetings such as the one planned for this week can assist in discussing major motions.
In terms of physical meetings - it might be appropriate to freeze the agenda and discussion papers 14 days prior to the meeting.
I would like to see some complete by-laws proposals that dealt with these issues, and then approve a new set of by-laws with at least 50% of the members of the constituency accepting.
The motion below might be appropriate to vote on as a resolution of the registrars to "consider" for the by-laws but not actually change the by-laws right now. Instead the change could be included in a complete re-draft of the by-laws and voted on by the membership .
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 4:41 AM
> To: email@example.com; 'Registrars Executive Committee';
> Subject: RE: Proposed Ballot
> I respectfully submit that these by-laws amendments should be
> handled in
> connection with the total overhaul of the by-laws scheduled
> to take place
> over the next couple of months and which must be approved by ICANN in
> connection ICANN reform. As far as a time line, new by-laws
> lead to be in
> place around the May time frame so that elections can take
> place by July.
> As long as these potential by-laws are in place prior to the
> next election,
> the preceived danger will not come to rise. Somehow I just think your
> priorities are not in line. There are other pressing issues
> as opposed to
> trying to push through a by-law amendment.