<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [registrars] Registrar meetings in Vancouver
Bob - your proposal was only sent to the Bylaws Working Group a few
days ago. Don't you think it would be more appropriate for us to more
fully consider it before presenting it as a motion to the constituency?
At the very least, there have been several improvements that have been
suggested, perhaps we should incorporate these, circulate a second draft
to the working group and move ahead based on a more widely held
understanding of the proposal.
I don't think we should be moving ahead with a motion as serious as this
based on a proposal drafted solely by one member of the constituency.
I also don't believe that our constituency voice will be any less
coherent or concise because of an administrative deficiency in our
bylaws. Bhavin, and Elana and Mike before him, have consistently managed
to present the views of the constituency in a manner that ensures our
interests are protected without violating the administrative rules we've
set forth.
Robert F. Connelly wrote:
At 12:21 AM 11/2/05, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
- use the physical meeting time in Vancouver to discuss issues where the
registrars need to make coherent public statements etc (e.g .com
agreement), or where registrars need to seek support from other parts of
the ICANN community (e.g WHOIS) for policy change
Dear Bruce:
I am sure that Bhavin can make a *coherent_statement* to ICANN.
But, at the same time, I don't think it will be credible because we
can't *vote* on it under the present By-Laws and Rules of Procedure.
With that in mind, I posted the following to the to the By-Laws
Committee and Excom on 29 October 2005:
Attached is a revised draft of the Rules of Procedure.
The only changes are the fleshing out of Article II, "Fast Track
Motions". We have too long been hamstrung and unable to take a stand on
issues urgent to Registrars. I offer the attached as a first cut toward
achieving this objective.
I urge you to expedite handling of a motion to amend the RoP so that we
can take advantage of conditions which may develop between now and the
close of the Vancouver meeting of ICANN.
Regards, BobC
end quote:
Here is my proposal for Fast Track Motions:
II. FAST TRACK MOTIONS
1. This Section is intended for use in called plenary meetings in
which a quorum of Registered Representatives (or their substitute
delegates) (By-Laws Article 4.4.1) are physically present or present
by telephone bridge. It is intended to facilitate the acceptance of
motions from the floor and to process them in accordance with Roberts
Rules of Order (4th edition, www.rulesonline.com), as specified by the
By-Laws Article 4.2.3.
2. The By-Laws Article 4.4.2 provision limiting discussion issues
to those set forth in the Agenda is set aside for these deliberations.
The Registered Representatives are to be free to respond to unexpected
conditions or developments which are brought to their attention.
3. After the called plenary meeting has adjourned but during the
following ICANN Meetings, the Chair or Vice Chair may call together
Registered Representatives (or their substitute delegates) to address an
urgent, unanticipated matter. If a quorum can be assembled (including
those on a telephone bridge), the assembled meeting may proceed to
address issues coming to their attention according to the provisions of
4 to 7, below.
4. Motions, Amendments, preemptory motions, etc. shall be handled
in accordance with Roberts Rules of Order except that 1. the main motion
shall require three endorsements rather than a single "second" and 2. a
motion to adjourn shall not be made with the intention of closing
discussion of any motion duly endorsed and under discussion.
5. Unless otherwise specified in the By-Laws, a simple majority
shall be required to pass a motion.
6. If a motion is passed, the results may be immediately forwarded
to the ICANN Board, GNSO, the general public, etc., in accordance with
the intent of the Registered Representatives voting.
Dissenting Registered Representatives shall be free to prepare a
dissenting report under conditions to which they shall agree.
end quote:
Without something like the above, Bhavin can be as coherent or erudite
as Lincoln, but to no avail unless he can speak with authority for the
Constituency. Don't we want to make a strong statement about the
proposed ICANN/Verisign settlement?
Certain members of the By-Laws Committee said they think the Motion
should include occasions other than plenary meetings which require
expedited action. I would certainly agree, I'm only making the proposal
to get us off dead center, other conditions could be added later.
Some felt that something more than a quorum should be required.
According to the By-Laws, for most items the required quorum is 50%. I
stated to the By-Laws Committee that I would qualify an amendment
requiring a 60% majority as "friendly" and would incorporate into my draft.
Others wanted to have the quorum in the By-Laws amended to take into
account the number of domains under management by the registrars. Such
could have the effect of permitting as few as 4 to 6 Registrars to
constitute a quorum. I don't think we are ready for such a change in
the By-Laws. (Remember, we need a two-thirds affirmative vote to change
the By-Laws).
In Luxembourg, we had 39 out of the 49 voting members present (80%). I
don't think there was one member who dissented from the proposed
statement on .Net. But, the RC could not act. Almost all of us present
signed a statement which we put in Bhavin's hands to deliver to ICANN.
But it was *not* an approved official statement of the Registrars
Constituency.
All this said, if we have a motion and three endorsements by 4 November
2005, we can enact some kind of Fast Track Motion provision, with the
ballot closing on 30 November. Such would permit us to give Bhavin the
authority to speak for the Constituency on the ICANN/Verisign proposed
settlement before ICANN *during* the November Meeting.
If three of you would write to me that you would endorse my proposal, I
will make the motion. We will have 14 days to discuss the motion, to
incorporate friendly *and* receive unfriendly amendments. The end
result will certainly differ from the present draft and will have the
benefit of the wisdom and insights of a broad range of Registrars.
I think we should do it, but I leave it to three of you to say you are
of a sufficiently similar mind to endorse my proposal, with the
understanding that you may simultaneously submit proposed amendments for
consideration.
Regards, BobC
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|