RE: [registrars] Registrar meetings in Vancouver

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bob, 

Unfortunately, I cannot endorse this motion. I feel the proposed process
hinges on the definition of what constitutes a quorum. I feel our bylaws
are currently somewhat ambiguous on that point, but they seem to imply
that a quorum is a simple majority, and that if one half plus one of
those constituting the quorum vote in favor then whatever they are
voting on passes. 

That works out to ~26% of the members being able to pass something. I
think that needs to be reconsidered even for motions or elections that
we have the full length of time to comtemplate and discuss. But for a
Fast Track Process it is completely unacceptable.

Tim 

 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [registrars] Registrar meetings in Vancouver
From: "Robert F. Connelly" <BobC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, November 02, 2005 3:52 pm
To: Registrars Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxx>

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