RE: [registrars] Recapitulations of nominations, BEAST, Nomcom, GNSO Representative.

["Thomas Barrett - EnCirca" <tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Bob,

I think Elliot should stay on the ballot.  As a general rule, I believe we
should always be flexible whenever the constituency has people willing to
volunteer their time.

I appreciate the desire to try to adhere to consistent procedures to ensure
an orderly and fair process.  But we have already deviated from the normal
procedure.  And obviously, the bylaws do not address this situation.  I
would like to suggest the following:

Since you re-issued a request for nominations on 12/12, then I propose that
the 14-day window should be restarted on this date.  This would make the
revised nomination deadline to be 12/26.

I also do not consider my acceptance of the nomination to contain a proper
conflict of interest statement.  So, here it is:

I am President of EnCirca, Inc, which is a registrar of domain names in
ICANN gTLDs and ccTLDs. I am not in possession of, nor have access to
Registry Proprietary Information or Registry Sensitive Information as
defined in the relevant ICANN/Registry contracts.

Best Regards,
Tom Barrett
EnCirca, Inc


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 10:10 PM
To: Robert F. Connelly
Cc: Registrars Constituency; RC Voting Members
Subject: Re: [registrars] Recapitulations of nominations, BEAST, Nomcom,
GNSO Representative.

Robert F. Connelly wrote:

> 
> Nomcom Representative:
> 
> Nominations were opened on 1 December 2004. 
> 
> Tom Barrett was nominated on 13 December 2004, he accepted and was 
> seconded.  He has submitted his conflict of interest statement.
> 
> Elliot Noss was nominated and seconded on 20 December 2004.  We have 
> not received his acceptance and conflict of interest statement.

<snip>

> The Rules are confusing because they refer to a nomination as a 
> "motion".  The text had been cut and pasted from the section on 
> Motions.  Note the reference in red,  *call for motion and call for 
> discussion*, which make little sense for a nomination.  However, it 
> would appear that the drafters intended to have nominations held open 
> for 14 days.  That said, Elliot's nomination came after the closing.  
> I propose that we either elect Tom Barrett by acclamation or that I post a
ballot with only one candidate.
> 
> I await your comments.
> 

I'd like to formally request a "bend" of the rules to allow Elliot's
nomination. In addition to a heavy travel schedule this month, I've been
laid up with a minor, but confining, injury. As a result, I haven't been in
the office since November :) Compounding this is the fact that Elliot is
still in Africa and hasn't had great connectivity over the past week. 
Although I know he has every intention of accepting his nomination and I'd
do it on his behalf if I could, I can't guarantee when he will do so.

I know this sounds like a hard luck story, but these are the facts :). 
Special consideration in this instance would be appreciated, but I also
understand this might not be possible.

Thanks in advance for your consideration,

-- 





                       -rwr



Contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross
Skydasher: A great way to start your day My weblog: http://www.byte.org