RE: [registrars] Staff support for the constituency

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> I haven't got a clue what you're talking about. The currently proposed
> draft allows ALL registrars to be Members.

> I also want to be involved in an effective RC. It cannot be truly
> effective, or representative, if it attempts to limit full 
> participation
> of ALL qualified, accredited registrars.

Yes - this is precisely my point - but we don't need multiple classes of
membership to achieve this. Members and Non-members suffice. Either you
are qualified and participate or you aren't and don't...

Its very black and white as far as I see it. Lets keep the structure and
the bylaws simple.


                       -rwr




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

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


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] 
> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 11:24 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
> 
> 
> Ross,
> 
> I haven't got a clue what you're talking about. The currently proposed
> draft allows ALL registrars to be Members. However, there is a
> restriction on the voting when considering the ownership 
> issue. I don't
> think it needs to be any more complicated than that, and didn't intend
> to suggest otherwise.
> 
> I also want to be involved in an effective RC. It cannot be truly
> effective, or representative, if it attempts to limit full 
> participation
> of ALL qualified, accredited registrars.
> 
> Tim
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com] 
> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 9:11 AM
> To: 'Tim Ruiz'; Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au
> Cc: jarcher@registrationtek.com; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Staff support for the constituency
> 
> [Responses to a couple of threads on the same topic merged together.]
> 
> > 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.
> 
> It is theoretically interesting, but we have open meetings, 
> open lists,
> open, open, open, etc. Creating an additional class of members just
> sounds like more administrative complexity and less productive work.
> 
> Elana brings up the point of subsidization in another message. To that
> point, I only ask what level of participation non-members should have.
> This isn't a social club. I want to be involved in a constituency that
> can deal with GNSO policy considerations effectively. I'm 
> concerned that
> if we create a non-voting class of members then we will have to create
> participatory structures that takes these non-voting views 
> into account.
> In a purely democratic model, the vote itself is the ultimate 
> expression
> of participation.
> 
> If my vote doesn't matter, then I'll just use this mailing list and
> air-time at the meeting to get my non-voting points across.
> 
> The constituency has a very limited mandate - we should be 
> striving for
> relevant simplicity that supports our efforts.
> 
> To the point that you raise in your very last message - I don't think
> that it is the intention of this draft to limit the participation of
> those Members that cannot vote because of ownership issues. If for
> instance Wildwest and Godaddy wants to appoint two people to 
> sit at the
> table, then so be it. My concerns (and prior points) are 
> solely limited
> to what I perceive to be a proposal to create a new class of 
> Non-Voting
> Members (as opposed to the current de facto classes of Voting Members
> and Restricted Voting Members).
> 
> 
> 
>                        -rwr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
> idiot."
> - Steven Wright
> 
> Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/
> 
> 
>