DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

RE: [registrars] Constituency Vote

Again, you may think I'm just splitting hairs.  But, non-members are not
technically being allowed to vote.  The nature of the ballot is two-fold.

First, RC members are voting on whether to accept or reject 3 documents
as positions of the constituency.  Only paid members' votes count.

Second, the ballot initiatives state that afirmative voters allow their
names to be appended as signatories to the statements IF THEY PASS.  This
is the only part of non-member that count.

In fact, any registrar who wishes could join on as a signatory to any
of these documents.  We've invited non-member registrars to do so in the
past, as it adds additional strength to the statement.


-----Original Message-----
From: Liz Williams [mailto:lizwilliams@lizwilliams.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 4:58 PM
To: jim.foley@neteka.com; 'Bryan Evans'; 'Beckwith, Bruce';
Subject: Re: [registrars] Constituency Vote
Importance: High


I spoke with Tim about this issue yesterday.  I think that, even if the
intentions of the ExCom are admirable, it sets a very bad precedent.

The best way to ensure that entities who wish to be members of the
Constituency and get the benefits of membership (one of which is voting
rights), is to have a clear process in place with respect to invoices and
payment.  I think, due to Bryan's efforts, that is currently the case.

Allowing non-financial members to vote is not only a contravention of the
existing by-laws, it just isn't good corporate goverance.

I cannot think of an example where any other professional organisation would
allow this kind of "leeway" to take place - particularly where such
important issues are at stake.


+61 2 6282 8518 tel
+61 2 6282 8519 fax
+61 414 26 9000 mob
email:  lizwilliams@lizwilliams.net
----- Original Message -----
From: <jim.foley@neteka.com>
To: "'Bryan Evans'" <bevans@interaccess.com>; "'Beckwith, Bruce'"
<bbeckwith@verisign.com>; <Registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 8:05 AM
Subject: RE: [registrars] Constituency Vote

> Bryan,
> 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
> we rationally draw a line between those who are merely late with their
> and those who've never paid them?  Changing procedures willy nilly is also
> not the kind of behavior that helps the Registrar Constituency maintain
> credibility.
> 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
> unchanged.
> Regards.
> Jim G. Foley
> jim.foley@neteka.com
> Neteka Inc.
> 416.971.4327
> -----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
> Bruce,
> 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.
> -Bryan
> -----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
> Bryan,
> I realize that you are just the messenger on this note, however, how do
> or the ExCom explain the changing of the rules during a vote?  I can't
> 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?
> Regards,
> Bruce
>  -----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
> Registrars,
> 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
> good standing as of December 31, 2001.  This includes about 25 or so
> 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
> elections.
> -Bryan
> Bryan Evans
> Treasurer
> Registrars Constituency
> Bryan.Evans@algx.com

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