RE: [RC Voting] RE: [registrars] Dues of $750 with "forgiveness" for those who choose to pay $250.

["Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bob:

For the record, I don't think that the Bylaws project did move forward
due to any bad intent on Rob's part.  Some members may infer that by
your comments.  What happened was that we asked for members to sit on a
committee to review the Bylaws and no one stepped forward.  Apparently,
the volunteer members of the RC were too busy and saw too little value
in joining Rob on a committee, so it withered.     

You also have pointed out a loophole in the Bylaws that we have had for
many years related to voting rights for affiliated registrars.  Tim Ruiz
and I mentioned it some time ago as well.  We should commend Rob, Paul
Stahura and others with a large number of registrars for not taking an
unfair advantage of the loophole to date.  If you or someone else is
willing to draft a change to the Bylaws to amend the provision at this
point, it would be most welcome.  We could address that one without
having a larger Bylaws project on our plate.

I think that this discussion underscores the importance of having a
professional staff person who can assist our volunteer membership, which
has insufficient bandwidth to deal with all of the issues on our
collective plates. 

Thanks.

Jon  
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-votingmembers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-votingmembers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert F.
Connelly
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 10:45 AM
To: Registrars Constituency; RC Voting Members
Subject: Re: [RC Voting] RE: [registrars] Dues of $750 with
"forgiveness" for those who choose to pay $250.

At 02:30 PM 7/30/2007 Monday  +0000, Rob Hall wrote:
>I think you are a little confused.  Pool.com is not a Registrar and
never has been.  It can not be a member of the Registrar Constituency.

Dear Rob: I am astounded and surprised.   I take your word for it, I
must be confused.  Can you explain just why that is the case?
> 
>And the acquisition registrars we have are prevented from being members
of the constituency by the bylaws.

I'm pleased that you have brought this debate out into the light of day
where everyone on the public list can participate.

Rob, you were put in charge of an ad hoc or task force to make a minor
amendment in the By-Laws which would, indeed, prevent shell registrars
from being *voting* members of the Constituency.  "Acquisition
registrars" seems to be a new aphorism for "shell" or "phantom"
registrars. 

I know of no provision in our By-Laws which would prevent one of
those_things from joining the Constituency and paying dues.  

Here is Article 4.5.1.3:

Members shall have one vote. Only Members in good standing shall have
voting rights. Where a Member owns 51% or more of the voting shares of
one or more ICANN Accredited Registrars, that Member shall be limited to
one (1) vote.

end quote:

>  I believe you advocated the changes to the bylaws that prevent
registrars owned by the same entity from being members. 

No, Jon and I both proposed closing the loop hole which would permit
phantom registrars from being "voting members", but there is nothing to
prevent your shells from paying dues and joining the Constituency.  Jon
put you in charge of creating a draft, but it has not been forthcoming
from you.

Certainly you use the Constituency to promote the interests of all the
shells.

Regards, BobC