Re: [registrars] residence or citizenship??

[Peter Gerrand <peter.gerrand@melbourneit.com.au>]

I support Amadeu's proposal for the waiver, for the reasons that both he
and Bob Connolly have given.  For the Names Council, residency actually
makes more sense for the registrar constituency.
Peter Gerrand
Melbourne IT

At 08:12 PM 9/11/99 +0200, Amadeu Abril i Abril wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Our current Articles say that each NC representative must come form a
>different region "as defined in the Bylaws".
>
>The question here is that during a long period the predominnt view was
>that the dirving cirterion for rgional diversity requirment was
>residence. But the current Btalwas clarly state "citizenship" as such
>requirment, both for the Board directos and the SO represntatives, as
>for instance Names Council reps.
>
>This seems to come from formal GAC requests, clearly in favour of
>citizenship (for obvious reasons, I must admit).
>
>The question is tht in our past experiment, we used residency as the
>drivng cirterion. Bob Connelly or Richard Lindsay /who eventually got
>elected) were considered as AP reprdesentatives despite theirnUS
>citizenship because they live and work in Asia (japan, in both cases).
>I have no didea whether all NA cnadiates wre really US or Canadian
>citizens for that matter). 
>
>I would like personally asking the the Board to revise this decision,
>and wjhile keeping citizenship for the Board directors, allow
>citizenship as the dirving cirtierion for SO councils' elections. I
>will try to get some support for this proposal, even within GAC and
>discuss it in LA next November.
>
>But this does not solve our problem for the next elections. My sense
>in Santiago was that most registrars present also believe that
>residency, ie, a living and working relationship with the professional
>evnironemnt whose interests is supposed to represnet, instead of a
>possible long-arms, legal, cultural and affextive relationshipbut
>perhaps deprived of any professional contact is a superior cirterion. 
>
>In this respect, and in the case we want to keep that cirterion for
>the elctions, we could ask for a waiver form the Board, as stated in
>their resolution copied below:
>
>" FURTHER RESOLVED, that Section 3(c) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws of
>the Corporation is hereby replaced in its entirety with the following: 
>
>"Each Constituency shall select up to three individuals to represent
>that Constituency on the NC, no two of whom may be citizens of the
>same Geographic Region, as defined in Article V, Section 6, except
>that, with the consent of the Board, this latter requirement may be
>suspended for the term of a particular individual upon a showing that
>it is impracticable for the Constituency to obtain such geographic
>diversity. Any such waiver shall be granted only upon a commitment by
>the constituency to a substantive plan to diversify its membership,
>thereby minimizing the likelihood of the need for future waivers from
>the Board. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Constituency may have
>more representatives on the NC than there are members of the
>Constituency." 
>
>*******
>
>I submit that we should ask for such waiver_
>
>* not in order to have double represntation form one region, but only
>to apply, at leassst this time, residency instead of citizenship in
>determining the regions
>* We make clear that the current numbe of distirbution of accredited
>registrars makes it difficult to reconcile both ideas, citizenship +
>solid working relationship and residce, and that outreach in this
>temrs is not the solution, as we have a pre-dfined potential
>population (those apllying and obtaingng accritation as gTLD registrars).
>
>I would also like to state that we would like using resiidency as  the
>permanent cirterion, but I am nto sure we will have the time to
>formally vote on that....
>
>The NC will hold a telconference next Wednesday. All constituencies
>are encouraged to announce whther they intend to ask for a
>"geographical diversity waiver" of any kind, so I would like haing a
>sense of the Registrar Constituency opinion by that date. At least a feeling.
>
>
>Best regards, and sorry ofor not having raised this issue beofre. Hope
>my health will contribute to the process form now on ;-))
>
>Amadeu
> 
~~~~~~~~~~ooOOoo~~~~~~~~~ 

Peter Gerrand
CEO, Melbourne IT and
Professorial Fellow, University of Melbourne
T: +61 3 9344 9300
F: +61 3 9347 9473
W: www.MelbourneIT.com.au