Re: [registrars] Registrar meetings in Vancouver

["Robert F. Connelly" <BobC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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