RE: [registrars] * Formal discussion period on the Budget is now closed.

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

I don't think it's an open question anymore.  As Bob notes, there were
no amendments that received the required endorsements.  

 

With that said, we have had a great deal of helpful discussion and as
Bob also noted, that the ExCom has an opportunity to send out a revised
budget in the next few days that will incorporate some of the comments
received to date.  I'd like to see the following clarified/spelled out
in the budget that we put to a vote:

 

*       Without creating legal liability for us, those who need to see
applications for fee reductions will keep them confidential; 

*       fee reductions will be granted only in limited circumstances and
will be reviewed based on a number of criteria, including size of
registrar, size of corporate affiliates, geographic location, and
whether the registrar is a new member; 

*       fees may be reduced to no lower than $250, but don't have to be
as low as $250; and 

*       there should be fee pro-ration for new members.

 

Thanks.

 

Jon

________________________________

From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 8:42 AM
To: Registrars Constituency; RC Voting Members
Subject: RE: [registrars] * Formal discussion period on the Budget is
now closed.

 

Bob, since the proponent of the original budget motion has not accepted
your amendment as friendly, I would assume it is an unfriendly
amendment, correct? If that is still an open question, I would encourse
Margie *not* accept the amendment as friendly. Also, who endorsed it and
could that individual please reaffirm their endorsement. I do not recall
seeing it.

 

I know discussion is closed, but with all due respect Bob, if your
motion passes it puts the ExCom and RC in an awkward position for the
following reasons:

 

1. It would basically make management of the RC funds a personal
responsbility of one or more ExCom members, which is a problem we have
been trying to resolve. And we could not move forward with using an
ICANN provided account.

 

2. It vastly reduces the value of having a paid secretariat since he/she
would not be able to manage the RC membership and invoicing or otherwise
assist the Treasurer in regards to those matters.

 

3. It puts the ExCom in a situation where they could become legally
liable if the information is divulged, even if unintentionally.

 

4. ExCom members come and go. When they leave the ExCom they cannot
commit to forgetting what they know. Are we going to start requiring
NDAs of ExCom members? I am sure that would severly limit the members
who would be interested in running.

 

I understand the spirit of your motion, but I don't think it is possible
to entirely enforce as written, nor should we attempt to. I have not
offered an amendment to it because I don't think there is any way to
propose it without creating the problems noted above.

 

Finally, I can't really think of a situation where a member trying to
minimize the opinions, participation, etc. of a member who paid less to
join for good reason would get very far with their effort. I've known
most of the regular participants of the RC for several years now and I
can't think of one who wouldn't speak up and put a lid on such an effort
immediately.

 

I would encourage the ExCom to make an effort to keep dues amount
confidential, but can see no good coming from a bylaw or rule that makes
it more or less a legal obligation.

 


Tim






-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [registrars] * Formal discussion period on the Budget is now
closed.
From: "Robert F. Connelly" <BobC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, August 04, 2007 10:14 am
To: RC Voting Members <votingmembers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Registrars Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Dear Members:

The discussion period for the Budget is now closed. There was a motion
to accept the budget as written by Treasurer Margie Milam. There were at
least three endorsements of the Motion. There were no Amendments to the
main Motion which received the required one endorsement. The main Motion
is in order as originally published.

There has been considerable discussion of the Motion. The original
proposer of the Motion has the opportunity to incorporate some of the
suggestions.

The Secretary will publi! sh the ballot on the Motion for inspection and
correction on 11 August.

The ballot will be opened on 13 August and closed on 23 August.

A special note to voting members: Make sure that your voting Email
address is in order. To have your vote counted you must follow these
protocols:

1. You are able to receive the email at that Email address, no anti-spam
for the ballot to hurdle.
2. You must return your marked ballot from your voting Email address,
not some alternate Email address.

Respectfully submitted,
Bob Connelly
Secretary of Registrar Constituency

P.S. Please forgive me for posting this Email to both the Voting Members
list and to the general RC list. The Rules of Procedure specify the RC
list, but I want to be sure that all voting members receive at least one
copy.