RE: [registrars] Request to Deny Multiple Votes/Registrar

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>]

Rob,

I'm not sure that's a good idea. A careful read of the proposed bylaws
should show that they already allow ALL Registrars to be members. As long
as they are ICANN accredited, they can join. Voting is restricted for any
that have cross ownership, but all may be members. So no amendment is
really needed for that.

I would also prefer that each pay their dues, if dues continue to be
required. RC meetings, teleconferences, etc. all have costs associated with
them that are based to some extent on the number of participants. It would
not be fair to allow some to have multiple participants (except for voting)
for the same dues as others with only one.

Tim


 -------- Original Message --------
   Subject: RE: [registrars] Request to Deny Multiple Votes/Registrar
   From: "Rob Hall" <rob@momentous.com>
   Date: Fri, April 25, 2003 1:32 pm
   To: "Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@register.com>, <ross@tucows.com>,
         "Registrars Mail List" <registrars@dnso.org>

   Ross,

   Would you then accept what I proposed in the alternative ?  ie: If you
   are going to limit the voting to one vote per "group of owned
   registrars", then the entire group is able to become a member of the
   RC for one membership fee.

   Rob.

   -----Original Message-----
   From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
   Behalf Of Elana Broitman
   Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 4:13 PM
   To: ross@tucows.com; Registrars Mail List
   Cc: Registrars Executive Committee
   Subject: RE: [registrars] Request to Deny Multiple Votes/Registrar


   Ross - your proposed amendment would change the voting process itself
   and require a vote before we get started on the bylaws.  That would
   again delay everything.  Right now, we're anticipating 2-3 amendments,
   max.  This would make for a very efficient/effective process.  Why
   don't you trust in the democratic process and that the amendment would
   not prevail because most RC members would agree with you?  NSI, us,
   others in our position would be able to cast only 1 vote each, so you
   have even a better shot.

   -----Original Message-----
   From: ross@tucows.com
   Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 4:08 PM
   To: Elana Broitman; 'Registrars Mail List'
   Cc: 'Registrars Executive Committee'
   Subject: RE: [registrars] Request to Deny Multiple Votes/Registrar


   > per the rules we, ourselves, set out all unfriendly
   > amendments will need a vote

   So do any motions that receive a second. Which leaves us with a bit of
   an impasse that precisely proves my underlying point.

   The #1 goal of this bylaw revision process was to ensure that we had a
   proper set of processes by which we could do day to day things like
   *debate* and *vote*. I don't believe that our mandate included
   changing the basic constitution of the constituency.

   Fairness would dictate that if it is possible for someone to put
   forward an amendment that diminishes my voting rights, then it is
   equally fair for me to put forward an amendment that restricts their
   voting rights.

   My request to the ExecComm stands and failing that, I would note that
   I have not withdrawn my motion on the grounds that it is "cute".
   Something this serious requires the benefit of the more stringent
   voting
   requirements set forth in the draft bylaws. Until they are in place, I
   consider it highly inappropriate to undertake the ballot you are
   soliciting.

                          -rwr




   "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
   idiot."
   - Steven Wright

   Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/