RE: [registrars] Staff support for the constituency

["Rob Hall" <rob@momentous.com>]

Or how about this.  I think it is simple and straight forward.

I propose the following amendment (I will leave it up to Elana to number it)
(and to decide if it is friendly or not).

"In the case where the bylaws prevent a member of the consituency from
voting, the membership fees will be waived for that member."

Rob.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Elana Broitman
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 10:59 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


you could propose an amendment to 2.5 to add non-members to "members" where
that appears in the section.  that would cover it

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com]
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 7:21 AM
To: Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au
Cc: jarcher@registrationtek.com; registrars@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [registrars] Staff support for the constituency


Bruce,

I like the idea of tiered dues. I don't like the idea of basing it on the
number of name under management. That works fine for ICANN accreditation
fees, which have nothing to do with setting policy that we all have to live
by. It does not work for the ICANN process. That is unless the weight of
our votes is also based on the number of names under management.

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

Tim


 -------- Original Message --------
   Subject: [registrars] Staff support for the constituency
   From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>
   Date: Sun, April 27, 2003 7:00 pm
   To: "Jim Archer" <jarcher@registrationtek.com>


   Hello Jim,

   >
   > I was concerned in DC to hear discussion of bringing on staff
   > because that
   > is usually a prelude to big increases in expense.  Although
   > the dues is
   > "only" $750.00 this can be a burden to some small companies.
   > I realize
   > that there is quite a lot of work and I know we all greatly
   > appreciate that
   > work, but I wonder if we could find a way to lower the dues?
   > There really
   > is no good solution.
   >


   Personally I think paid staff support is the best way for the
   registrars constituency to be more effective.  We have been very
   fortunate to have people such as Michael Palage, Ken Stubbs and Rick
   Wesson put in a huge number of hours in routine administrative tasks,
   but the danger of not having such support has been evident in other
   constituencies.

   With regard to dues, in other professional associations I have been
   associated with, it is common to have tiered fees.  Note we already
   pay tiered fees to ICANN (based on a fixed component and a component
   relative to the number of names under management).

   A simple approach to staff support would be to follow the ICANN model
   for use within the constituency.  A fixed fee, plus a fee proportional
   to the number of names under management.

   The experience with the GNSO and Task Forces has been that the lack of
   staff support has been a limiting factor in the speed of progress on
   significant issues.  We also see this time and time again within the
   constituency.

   Regards,
   Bruce Tonkin

   >