RE: [registrars] Staff support for the constituency

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

Elana, I said nothing about non-membership fees.

From my read, and to use a specific example, the proposed bylaws do NOT
prohibit both Wild West Domains and Go Daddy Software from being Members
of the RC even though both are owned by the same parent company.
However, the bylaws DO restrict them to only one vote.

If that is the case, then Rob's amendment is unnecessary.

As far as the dues issues, I think that should just all wait until
later.

Tim


-----Original Message-----
From: Elana Broitman [mailto:ebroitman@register.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 8:29 AM
To: Tim Ruiz; ross@tucows.com; Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au
Cc: jarcher@registrationtek.com; registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Staff support for the constituency

process point: this will need to be a separate amendment

on substance: i agree with the suggestion that we can assess
non-membership fees. if they get the benefit of a certain level of
participation, why should we subsidize non-members?

i also agree that we should separate the staff issue.  that is a matter
to be handled by excom per the budget process- not a bylaw issue

thanks

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com]
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 10:12 AM
To: ross@tucows.com; Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au
Cc: jarcher@registrationtek.com; registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Staff support for the constituency


>what value it brings beyond what Observer class participation offers.

A non-voting member would have all the other rights of a member,
including not getting thrown of a meeting when it is closed to
observers.

This relates to Bruce's idea of fees being based on names under
management, and to Rob's proposed amendment that all registrars be
allowed to join but if they can't vote, they don't pay dues.

Tim


-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 8:03 AM
To: tim@godaddy.com; Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au
Cc: jarcher@registrationtek.com; registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Staff support for the constituency

> I would suggest that there be two level of fees. One for members with
> voting rights, and one for non-voting members.

What does this arrangement get us? 

Personally, my preference would be to separate the discussion of staff
support from the discussion of membership structure. The question of
staff support can largely be addressed through an analysis of the costs.
At that point, the constituency can have a discussion of whether or not
we *want* to pay these additional fees and how we will pay for them (no
bake sales please).

The question of membership structure, OTOH, seems a little bit out of
the blue at this point. I'm very happy with the equality that is built
into the current drafts.  As my opening question implies, I'm not quite
sure what this additional level of complexity will add to our efforts
nor what value it brings beyond what Observer class participation
offers.

                       -rwr




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

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