[registrars] ICANN By-Laws and My status as Chair

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>]

Elana:

For clarification your assumption is WRONG.

Under article XX, Section 2 paragraph 5 of the ICANN by-laws
(http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm) my term as Director does not begin
until " the ICANN Secretary has received written notice of the selection of
Directors to fill at least ten of Seats 1 through 14 on the New Board."
Hopefully  this will happen at the conclusion of the Montreal meeting.

Therefore, I am still the acting Chair of the Registrar Constituency.
However, I most compliment you and Ross on your timely and some what
coordinated emails. Almost as timely and coordinated as when I nominated Rob
Hall for Chair, and within minutes Ross was asking for a list of members in
good standing. I am glad you both seconded his nomination so there would be
no confusion.

While we are on the topic of clarification, I still do not believe that you
have answered my questions about your role in RegistryPro's ccTLD program.
Since these ccTLDs were acquired by Afilias would you object if I was to ask
Afilias what role you played, if any, and what type of information you had
access to, if any? I believe a third party verification would help remove
any doubt as to your compliance with the new by-laws.

Mike



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elana Broitman [mailto:ebroitman@register.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 4:12 PM
> To: Michael D. Palage; ross@tucows.com
> Cc: Registrars List
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Re: Not so fast Rick!!!!! Hold off on the
> election
>
>
> Mike - for clarification, are you now simultaneously a
> representative of the GNSO on the ICANN Board?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 4:00 PM
> To: ross@tucows.com
> Cc: 'Registrars List'
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Re: Not so fast Rick!!!!! Hold off on the
> election
>
>
> Ross,
>
> Seeing how I am STILL the Chair of the Registrar Constituency
> would you mind
> sending me a copy of your analysis, or for that fact sending it to the
> entire list. I am not proposing throwing out the by-laws but Jim
> Archer has
> raised the question of whether the by-laws were properly posted. If they
> were not properly posted how could they be followed.
>
> Mike
>
> P.S. Would trying to deny the only person that expressed interest
> in running
> for a position constitute a "witch hunt" under the criteria you described
> last week?
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 3:38 PM
> > Cc: 'Registrars List'
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] Re: Not so fast Rick!!!!! Hold off on the
> > election
> >
> >
> > > I understand the by-laws revision was intended to remove ambiguity and
> > > provide a black and white definition. However, common sense
> > > would seem to
> > > argue that if someone wants to run for a position no one else
> > > is interested
> > > in, we should consider letting that person run.
> >
> >
> > While allowing for practical exceptions at the edge is prudent (ie -
> > there aren't yet any Registrar Representatives, therefore all
> > nominations are invalid), we should try to follow through on what the
> > bylaws actually say as closely as possible. I've sent Rick an analysis
> > of what the appropriate courses of action are - I've no doubt that he'll
> > make a reasonable decision. It would be a tragedy to throw out the
> > bylaws as being inconvenient this early in the game - let's stick it out
> > a little bit further and see what we learn about our constitution.
> >
> > Consider this set of events precedent #1. :)
> >
> >
> >                        -rwr
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
> > idiot."
> > - Steven Wright
> >
> > Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/
> >
>
>