Re: [registrars] RE: Proposed Ballot

[Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@digitel.net>]

A considered & very well written paper here.
This document could provide an excellent framework for moving forward in
crafting new constituancy by-laws.

thanks for the hard work Tom...


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Keller" <tom@schlund.de>
To: "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>; "'Michael D.
Palage'" <michael@palage.com>; <ross@tucows.com>; "'Registrars Executive
Committee'" <rc-excom@ar.com>; <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 11:19 AM
Subject: AW: [registrars] RE: Proposed Ballot


Hello All,

Bruce, thanks for mentioning it again. Attached you can find my latest
version where I undertook the effort to reflect the new GNSO Policy
Development Process in the way you proposed it last year.

I agree with Bruce that it should be the Constituencies foremost goal to
create new bylaws which enable us to work more effectively. I don't know
how much time has already been spend over the last years discussing
process and decision making every time a decision was needed. Just think
of what
could have been done in that time if we would have had a proper process
in place. I agree that working out this process is somehow "a pain in
the butt" but we only have to make it ONCE before we go on to take care
of the real interesting thinks.

Best

tom

--

Tom Keller
Schlund + Partner AG
tom@schlund.de

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] Im
Auftrag von Bruce Tonkin
Gesendet: Dienstag, 18. Februar 2003 00:34
An: Michael D. Palage; ross@tucows.com; Registrars Executive Committee;
registrars@dnso.org
Betreff: [registrars] RE: Proposed Ballot

Hello Mike,

Agreed.

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.

etc.

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 .


Regards,
Bruce


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 4:41 AM
> To: ross@tucows.com; 'Registrars Executive Committee';
> registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: Proposed Ballot
>
>
> Ross,
>
> 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.
>
> Mike
>
>