Re: [registrars] proposed new by law "amendments section" comments

[Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@digitel.net>]

a very practical suggestion tim..


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>
To: <ross@tucows.com>; "'Ken Stubbs'" <kstubbs@digitel.net>; "'Registrars'"
<Registrars@dnso.org>
Cc: "'Elana Broitman'" <ebroitman@register.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 11:30 AM
Subject: RE: [registrars] proposed new by law "amendments section" comments


> It might make sense to just break out two or three special cases,
> something like:
>
> Bylaw amendments
> ExCom, NomCom, and GNSO reps
> Other reps (task forces, committees, etc.)
>
> And decide the minimum required for those. For every thing else the 10%
> to a minimum of 10 would apply.
>
> Tim
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 10:02 AM
> To: 'Tim Ruiz'; 'Ken Stubbs'; 'Registrars'
> Cc: 'Elana Broitman'
> Subject: RE: [registrars] proposed new by law "amendments section"
> comments
>
>
> > But, if we are only talking about bylaw
> > amendments, then perhaps what Ken suggests would somewhat
> > modified like this:
>
> I clarified this with Ken offline - we are substantially talking about
> bylaws amendments - my point is simply that the dynamic is equally
> applicable to all votes, so we need to be careful across the board.
>
> > A vote of at least two thirds of all ballots cast in favor of
> > an amendment is necessary for adoption, except that if the
> > total of all votes cast represents less than 50% of the
> > membership, then a simple majority that represents no less
> > than one-third of the membership is necessary for adoption.
>
> I think that this modification would be appropriate specifically for
> amendments to the bylaws. We should still consider whether ten percent
> to a minimum of ten is appropriate for all other votes (I think it isn't
> bad, but might be a tad low...)
>
> -rwr
>
>
>
>