DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [registrars] Constituency Vote


I find it curious that anyone would propose altering voting eligibility
criteria in mid-vote.  I'm unaware of any precedent in existence, RC or
reputable government or otherwise, that would do such a thing.  And how can
we rationally draw a line between those who are merely late with their dues
and those who've never paid them?  Changing procedures willy nilly is also
not the kind of behavior that helps the Registrar Constituency maintain its

Bryan, notwithstanding the likely good intentions behind broadening the
voting constituency, the decision to do so raises some questions about the
way the vote tally is going and the motivation for wanting to broaden the
number of registrars eligible to vote on this proposal.  To avoid any
misinterpretation, it would be more appropriate to leave the voting rules


Jim G. Foley
Neteka Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Bryan Evans
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 3:27 PM
To: Beckwith, Bruce; Registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Constituency Vote


I appreciate your opinion.  Among other things, the primary concern is
that some people believe that registrars may not have had sufficient
time to pay the constituency dues.  Therefore, the expanded vote enables
registrars who were constituency members in good standing on December 31,
2001 to append their names to the WLS and .org constituency statements,
if they so desire.

Please note, the votes of registrars who have not paid the 2002
constituency dues will not count towards whether the Constituency
passes any of these position statements.  It merely allows additional
registrars to append their names to the statements, if they pass the
constituency vote.

Perhaps this is a subtle distinction.  I don't believe we've changed
the rules of voting, just broadened the range of registrars who can
easily "sign on" to an official constituency position, if the members
in good standing pass the resolutions.

Furthermore, this also gives registrars an extended deadline of Friday,
March 8 to pay their constituency dues for their vote to count as an
actual vote.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Beckwith, Bruce
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 9:49 AM
To: Registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Constituency Vote


I realize that you are just the messenger on this note, however, how do you
or the ExCom explain the changing of the rules during a vote?  I can't find
this authority either in the existing by-laws nor in the by-laws that are
being proposed.

Doesn't this change, mid-stream, call into question the legitimacy of the
vote?  What does this say about the Registrar Constituency itself?



 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Bryan Evans [mailto:bevans@interaccess.com]
Sent:	Tuesday, March 05, 2002 7:50 PM
To:	Registrars@dnso.org
Subject:	[registrars] Constituency Vote


Due to the circumstances surrounding the current vote, the RC Executive
Committee has decided to solicit votes for the WLS and .org redelegation
statements from all current members of the constituency, plus any members in
good standing as of December 31, 2001.  This includes about 25 or so former
members who have not paid their 2002 dues, yet.  These former members will
be indicated as such on the position statements.

This exception is being made for this vote only.  Remember, only current
contstituency members who have paid their dues are able to vote in


Bryan Evans
Registrars Constituency

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>