[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [registrars] Run-Off Ballot
At 11:11 19-02-2000 -0500, Michael D. Palage wrote:
>Attached below is a ballot and some additional proposals for amending the
>by-laws. These new amendments have been proposed in light of various issues
>that have arisen since the last ballot.
Michael has chosen to ignore the provision of the Registrars Constituency
Charter which I forwarded to him on 17 February 2000, 00:31 + 0800 (Japan
That provision is as follows:
De : Robert F. Connelly <firstname.lastname@example.org>
À : email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc : email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date : lundi 31 mai 1999 13:09
Objet : Re: [registrar] FW: Names Council elections
>At 10:08 31-05-99 +0200, Andrew McLaughlin wrote:
>>Hi all, whenever you get this mail.
>>According to the Registrar Consituency Charter we will elect the three
>>Naems Council reps (as provided by ICANN bylaws) using a two weeks
>>timeline, one for nominations and one for voting.
The subject of Andrew's posting was the Names Council election.
The present posting by Michael includes a proposal to amend some kind of
by-laws. If there is a provision in some existing by-laws that addresses
the time for voting, it would have been nice for Michael to post them to me
and make me aware of them. My comments were posted three days ago.
It concerns me that Michael insisted on closing the prior ballot in four
days, not the seven days specified by Andrew. I must assume that he was
not satisfied with results of the prior ballot. Those results, after four
days, were a tie between two candidates for the NC member to represent
Europe. However, Michael received a ballot from one member in five days,
thereby breaking the tie. I find it difficult to conclude that Michael's
determination to ignore the "Registrar Constituency Charter" is motivated
by his dissatisfaction with the will of the majority in the prior ballot.
Let's look at the issue. The losing candidate is Paul Kane. Paul is a
good friend and I admire him highly. However, let's consider his
qualifications to run for the RegistraR Constituency NC office.
He is instrumental in running the registrY for at least three ccTLDs from
the UK, .io, .ac and .sh. He would be qualified for running for the NC as
a candidate for the ccTLD RegistrY Constituency. His qualifications for
running for the Names Council for the RegistraR Constituency are stated in
[ ] Paul Kane (UK Citizen) (Research Institute for Computer Science, Inc.
In other words, the registraR upon which his candidacy rests is located in
the Asia Pacific Region, not in Europe at all.
How does this differ from Richard Lindsay, a Citizen of the US, remaining a
member of the NC representing the Asia Pacific Region of ICANN? I have
previously shown that any citizen of Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Marianas or America Samoa would be eligible to represent the AP region
based upon his or her US citizenship and residence in the Region.
How much does Paul have to do with the ICANN Accredited RegistraR operation
of the Research Institute for Computer Science? None. Paul comes to Japan
perhaps three times per year on the business of the .io registrY. Together
with the Institute, Paul has been instrumental in creating a domain name
system using Chinese characters (Japanese kanji) followed by .jp.io. By
his own admission to me, he has no input to the work of the Institute with
respect to the operation of the Institute's ICANN Accredited application to
become a registraR.
Had I been aware of this inconsistency when the original proposal was made,
I would have so advised at the time. However, as I have told Michael
several times, I did not receive the ballot he claims to have posted on 7
February, therefore did not know that Paul's eligibility was based upon
this Japanese Institute's ICANN Accreditation. By the way, the Institute
has not taken the next steps of qualifying with NSI --- $10,000 licensing
fee, $100,000 bond, $70,000 cash, one month's estimated registration fees.
ICANN has its own "supreme court". If ICANN permits it's by-laws to be
breached, anyone anywhere may challenge the breach. If ICANN lets this
travesty to continue, I intend to bring this grievance to this "supreme court".
I have copied ICANN with this posting. I copied ICANN with my prior
posting of Andrew's statement about the Registrar Constituency Charter. No
one from ICANN has commented upon my posting, nor has Michael. If Andrew's
posting is not applicable, someone at ICANN should have so stated and
presented their case. Lacking same, I should conclude that ICANN has
nothing to state to refute the applicability of Andrew's prior mandate.
I think there is something very wrong being done in this matter.