Re: [registrars] Registrar meetings in Vancouver
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.