RE: [registrars] SiteFinder Ballot

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Mike,

Probably the best approach is to publish the details of a vote in full
on the registrars public mailing list.
This would include the following information that is available in the
Boardrooms system:
- number of registrars constituency members
- Number of those that voted
- How each registrar voted.

I think that a short note to the Board documenting the decision is fine,
but a link can be provided to the details on the public mailing list for
anyone that is interested.  This is the approach taken with the GNSO.
Ie we forward decisions to the ICANN Board, but the minutes of meetings
record the details of the vote.

Regards,
Bruce


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@xxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, 2 October 2003 11:28 AM
> To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
> Cc: Paul Twomey
> Subject: [registrars] SiteFinder Ballot
> 
> 
> Elana:
> 
> Thank you for conveying to Paul and the ICANN community the 
> Registrar's motion on the SiteFinder resolution, see 
> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/broitman-to-twomey-01oct03
.htm. However, I would like to point out what I believe to be an
oversight in your communication. As part of documenting the bottoms-up
consensus process, it is important to know the actual signatories to the
ballot. Simply representing percentages without actual signatories is
subject to scrutiny and undermines the voice of those registrars that
voted. By way of example, the fact that there are approximately only 1/3
of all ICANN accredited registrars participating within the Registrar
Constituency, seriously undermines your representation that the motion
passed unanimously by 73% of the eligible votes.

By way of example, I refer to the letter of support that was submitted
in connection with ICANN reform last summer. In that document all
registrars supporting the letter were identified, along with the market
share that these registrars represented. This provided a much more
reliable document should a consensus decision be required.

I would personally recommend you that you append to your original
communication the actual results of those registrars voting in favor of
the ballot. The registrars have nothing to hide and it can only bolster
the registrar's position, and assist in any consensus building process.

Best regards,

Mike