RE: [registrars] Nominations for Chair.
Dear Bob, There has been quite a bit of change in the list of active registrars since the last election. Its unclear how many of these have formally joined the Registrar group. In order to prevent some of the confusion from the last election, I suggest the following take place well in advance of the election: 1. Publish the list of registrars that you consider eligible to vote in this election. 2. For those registrars not on the official list: outline the specific criteria, process and deadline that needs to be followed for them to become eligible to vote for this election. Does anyone have any objections to this? Best Regards, Tom Barrett EnCirca, Inc.
Tom, At the last meeting in KL, I believe it was decided that we would use the current boardroom roster for a vote on the budget, and freeze the boardroom roster for this purpose as it stood then. As I understand it, the challenge is we need to vote on the new budget to set the fees for this year, and then people can join. Currently, I believe the fee to join is $750, as Mike Palage said, and that the re-occuring annual fees have been zero for the last few years. So if a new member were to join, they would have to pay the $750 that we all paid at one time. But perhaps we should have the vote on Donna's proposed budget, then we can all pay the new suggested annual fee, and start from a clean slate/list of members prior to the new vote for Chair. This would allow us to clearly know who is a member at the time of voting. Rob. -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of tbarrett Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 8:30 PM To: 'Robert F. Connelly'; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: RE: [registrars] Nominations for Chair. Dear Bob, There has been quite a bit of change in the list of active registrars since the last election. Its unclear how many of these have formally joined the Registrar group. In order to prevent some of the confusion from the last election, I suggest the following take place well in advance of the election: 1. Publish the list of registrars that you consider eligible to vote in this election. 2. For those registrars not on the official list: outline the specific criteria, process and deadline that needs to be followed for them to become eligible to vote for this election. Does anyone have any objections to this? Best Regards, Tom Barrett EnCirca, Inc.
Rob, As you'll recall we weren't able formally to "agree" on a position concerning the WLS, so I borrowed Bhavin's laptop and submitted a proposal that in the due course of time was balloted. I haven't noticed anything resembling this in the subject under discussion. Is this something I missed while on holiday, or was this decision simply one of the members present at KL. I have some concerns about not allowing accredited registrars to join the RC until some unrelated predicate condition is satisfied, and what if the budget takes longer than a nominal amount of time to approve? Eric
Eric, My statement does not preclude anyone from joining at this time, but they must pay the old $750 fee. If I recall correctly, the new proposed fee was slightly less (but it might have been the same). If less, I assumed that some would want to wait to join. But there is absolutely nothing that prevents a registrar from paying $750 now and joining, as per Tim Ruiz's email. Rob. -----Original Message----- From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine [mailto:brunner@nic-naa.net] Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 7:35 AM To: Rob Hall Cc: tbarrett; 'Robert F. Connelly'; 'Registrars Constituency'; brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [registrars] Nominations for Chair. Rob, As you'll recall we weren't able formally to "agree" on a position concerning the WLS, so I borrowed Bhavin's laptop and submitted a proposal that in the due course of time was balloted. I haven't noticed anything resembling this in the subject under discussion. Is this something I missed while on holiday, or was this decision simply one of the members present at KL. I have some concerns about not allowing accredited registrars to join the RC until some unrelated predicate condition is satisfied, and what if the budget takes longer than a nominal amount of time to approve? Eric
All, The ExCom has been discussing this. After a review of the bylaws, it appears that we cannot proceed as discussed in KL. The bylaws call for a 30-day review period once the budget has been posted (which should happen in a day or so) before we call for a vote on it. And I don't see any mechanism by which we can freeze membership as we discussed. I suggest that everyone review the membership list posted by Bob. If there are any discrepancies let him know as soon as possible. I also suggest that any new Members get their application and $750 payment/joining fee in as soon as possible as that will be required prior to the *call for the vote* (approx. 2 days prior to the actual vote) before being added to the voting list. Tim -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 9:54 AM To: tbarrett; 'Robert F. Connelly'; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: RE: [registrars] Nominations for Chair. Tom, At the last meeting in KL, I believe it was decided that we would use the current boardroom roster for a vote on the budget, and freeze the boardroom roster for this purpose as it stood then. As I understand it, the challenge is we need to vote on the new budget to set the fees for this year, and then people can join. Currently, I believe the fee to join is $750, as Mike Palage said, and that the re-occuring annual fees have been zero for the last few years. So if a new member were to join, they would have to pay the $750 that we all paid at one time. But perhaps we should have the vote on Donna's proposed budget, then we can all pay the new suggested annual fee, and start from a clean slate/list of members prior to the new vote for Chair. This would allow us to clearly know who is a member at the time of voting. Rob. -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of tbarrett Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 8:30 PM To: 'Robert F. Connelly'; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: RE: [registrars] Nominations for Chair. Dear Bob, There has been quite a bit of change in the list of active registrars since the last election. Its unclear how many of these have formally joined the Registrar group. In order to prevent some of the confusion from the last election, I suggest the following take place well in advance of the election: 1. Publish the list of registrars that you consider eligible to vote in this election. 2. For those registrars not on the official list: outline the specific criteria, process and deadline that needs to be followed for them to become eligible to vote for this election. Does anyone have any objections to this? Best Regards, Tom Barrett EnCirca, Inc.
I recall that one of the disputes in KL was what registrar certain voting members represented. I suggest that a column be added to Bob's spreadsheet indicating the registrar that the member represents. Most of them are obvious but a few are not. Bob could then send out inquiries to finalize the list. Best Regards, Tom Barrett EnCirca, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 11:26 AM To: 'Rob Hall'; 'tbarrett'; 'Robert F. Connelly'; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: RE: [registrars] Nominations for Chair. All, The ExCom has been discussing this. After a review of the bylaws, it appears that we cannot proceed as discussed in KL. The bylaws call for a 30-day review period once the budget has been posted (which should happen in a day or so) before we call for a vote on it. And I don't see any mechanism by which we can freeze membership as we discussed. I suggest that everyone review the membership list posted by Bob. If there are any discrepancies let him know as soon as possible. I also suggest that any new Members get their application and $750 payment/joining fee in as soon as possible as that will be required prior to the *call for the vote* (approx. 2 days prior to the actual vote) before being added to the voting list. Tim -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 9:54 AM To: tbarrett; 'Robert F. Connelly'; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: RE: [registrars] Nominations for Chair. Tom, At the last meeting in KL, I believe it was decided that we would use the current boardroom roster for a vote on the budget, and freeze the boardroom roster for this purpose as it stood then. As I understand it, the challenge is we need to vote on the new budget to set the fees for this year, and then people can join. Currently, I believe the fee to join is $750, as Mike Palage said, and that the re-occuring annual fees have been zero for the last few years. So if a new member were to join, they would have to pay the $750 that we all paid at one time. But perhaps we should have the vote on Donna's proposed budget, then we can all pay the new suggested annual fee, and start from a clean slate/list of members prior to the new vote for Chair. This would allow us to clearly know who is a member at the time of voting. Rob. -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of tbarrett Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 8:30 PM To: 'Robert F. Connelly'; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: RE: [registrars] Nominations for Chair. Dear Bob, There has been quite a bit of change in the list of active registrars since the last election. Its unclear how many of these have formally joined the Registrar group. In order to prevent some of the confusion from the last election, I suggest the following take place well in advance of the election: 1. Publish the list of registrars that you consider eligible to vote in this election. 2. For those registrars not on the official list: outline the specific criteria, process and deadline that needs to be followed for them to become eligible to vote for this election. Does anyone have any objections to this? Best Regards, Tom Barrett EnCirca, Inc.
Tom: This information (voting/non-voting member) should already be in the Boardrooms.org system. If you look at the attached efax that we required of all members, each registrar was required to designate and official/voting representative and then observers. I will try to dig up these old efax files. However, I will be shutting down shortly and logging off as the Governor of Florida has told our community to evacuate with the pending Cat 4 hurricane heading right were I live. Do not know exactly where I will end up over the next couple of days but I will try to make sure I have Internet access. Perhaps these old files can expediate the process similar to the older payment files that I found a couple of days ago. Best regards, Michael D. Palage -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of tbarrett Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 11:47 AM To: 'Tim Ruiz'; 'Rob Hall'; 'Robert F. Connelly'; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: RE: [registrars] Nominations for Chair. I recall that one of the disputes in KL was what registrar certain voting members represented. I suggest that a column be added to Bob's spreadsheet indicating the registrar that the member represents. Most of them are obvious but a few are not. Bob could then send out inquiries to finalize the list. Best Regards, Tom Barrett EnCirca, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 11:26 AM To: 'Rob Hall'; 'tbarrett'; 'Robert F. Connelly'; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: RE: [registrars] Nominations for Chair. All, The ExCom has been discussing this. After a review of the bylaws, it appears that we cannot proceed as discussed in KL. The bylaws call for a 30-day review period once the budget has been posted (which should happen in a day or so) before we call for a vote on it. And I don't see any mechanism by which we can freeze membership as we discussed. I suggest that everyone review the membership list posted by Bob. If there are any discrepancies let him know as soon as possible. I also suggest that any new Members get their application and $750 payment/joining fee in as soon as possible as that will be required prior to the *call for the vote* (approx. 2 days prior to the actual vote) before being added to the voting list. Tim -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 9:54 AM To: tbarrett; 'Robert F. Connelly'; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: RE: [registrars] Nominations for Chair. Tom, At the last meeting in KL, I believe it was decided that we would use the current boardroom roster for a vote on the budget, and freeze the boardroom roster for this purpose as it stood then. As I understand it, the challenge is we need to vote on the new budget to set the fees for this year, and then people can join. Currently, I believe the fee to join is $750, as Mike Palage said, and that the re-occuring annual fees have been zero for the last few years. So if a new member were to join, they would have to pay the $750 that we all paid at one time. But perhaps we should have the vote on Donna's proposed budget, then we can all pay the new suggested annual fee, and start from a clean slate/list of members prior to the new vote for Chair. This would allow us to clearly know who is a member at the time of voting. Rob. -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of tbarrett Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 8:30 PM To: 'Robert F. Connelly'; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: RE: [registrars] Nominations for Chair. Dear Bob, There has been quite a bit of change in the list of active registrars since the last election. Its unclear how many of these have formally joined the Registrar group. In order to prevent some of the confusion from the last election, I suggest the following take place well in advance of the election: 1. Publish the list of registrars that you consider eligible to vote in this election. 2. For those registrars not on the official list: outline the specific criteria, process and deadline that needs to be followed for them to become eligible to vote for this election. Does anyone have any objections to this? Best Regards, Tom Barrett EnCirca, Inc.
At 08:47 AM 9/2/04, tbarrett wrote:
I suggest that a column be added to Bob's spreadsheet indicating the registrar that the member represents. Most of them are obvious but a few are not. Bob could then send out inquiries to finalize the list.
Dear Tom: The Boardrooms.org is not designed with associations in mind. There is *no_field* for company name;-( In most cases, I can guess at the company name based upon the Email domain -- but that does not take care of the consultants, attorneys, etc. Cordially, BobC
Hi Bob: Perhaps the membership roll could be maintained separately in a spreadsheet (or HTML table on the web site). This list could include a complete set of information about each member of the constituency. When a new entry is created in the membership roll (or substantive information is updated) the boardrooms.org account could be updated accordingly. I hate to suggest an extra step or an extra place to store information, but the requirement of identifying which registrar each voter represents seems like an important one. Jordyn On Sep 2, 2004, at 6:12 PM, Robert F. Connelly wrote:
At 08:47 AM 9/2/04, tbarrett wrote:
I suggest that a column be added to Bob's spreadsheet indicating the registrar that the member represents. Most of them are obvious but a few are not. Bob could then send out inquiries to finalize the list.
Dear Tom: The Boardrooms.org is not designed with associations in mind. There is *no_field* for company name;-(
In most cases, I can guess at the company name based upon the Email domain -- but that does not take care of the consultants, attorneys, etc.
Cordially, BobC
but the requirement of identifying which registrar each voter represents seems like an important one.
I'm not aware of anyone in this situation, but it seems possible that some persons who keep track of the politics-and-issues of the RC may hold proxy votes from some registrars that don't keep track of the politics-and-issues of the RC. Eric
On Sep 3, 2004, at 7:05 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote:
I'm not aware of anyone in this situation, but it seems possible that some persons who keep track of the politics-and-issues of the RC may hold proxy votes from some registrars that don't keep track of the politics-and-issues of the RC.
This is fine, of course. Tom's original suggestion (and one I support) was that we devise a way to keep track of which registrar each voting member represents. Registrars may designate whoever they want to be their Registered Representative; the idea is simply to know which registrar any given voter represents. This is just one element in the general process of keeping our membership rolls up to date. It sounds like there's some confusion around how to add members as well, so let me add my voice of support for clarifying that process as well. It seems that paying the $750 initiation fee should give new registrars the right to vote, at least until the ongoing budget is clarified. Jordyn
At 04:16 PM 9/3/04, Jordyn A. Buchanan wrote:
This is just one element in the general process of keeping our membership rolls up to date. It sounds like there's some confusion around how to add members as well, so let me add my voice of support for clarifying that process as well. It seems that paying the $750 initiation fee should give new registrars the right to vote, at least until the ongoing budget is clarified.
Dear Jordyn: Agreed:-) Regards, BobC
At 07:44 AM 9/3/04, Jordyn A. Buchanan wrote:
Hi Bob:
Perhaps the membership roll could be maintained separately in a spreadsheet (or HTML table on the web site). This list could include a complete set of information about each member of the constituency. When a new entry is created in the membership roll (or substantive information is updated) the boardrooms.org account could be updated accordingly.
Dear Jordyn: Thanks for your thoughts. The Boardrooms.org system may be fine for a company but is flawed for our purposes. Further, our members voted 52/48 against the voting system. I am open to suggestions for a better system. Another problem is that members lose passwords and therefore cannot vote. Cordially, BobC
I hate to suggest an extra step or an extra place to store information, but the requirement of identifying which registrar each voter represents seems like an important one.
Jordyn
Hi tim,
I suggest that everyone review the membership list posted by Bob. If there are any discrepancies let him know as soon as possible. I also suggest that any new Members get their application and $750 payment/joining fee in as soon as possible as that will be required prior to the *call for the
How does one get an invoice for that $750? Where does one send that $750 to? I know in india banks do not release foreign funds without an invoice. So we need someone to do this for any registrar who wants to become a member. Who would they contact for this? bhavin
participants (8)
-
Bhavin Turakhia -
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine -
Jordyn A. Buchanan -
Michael D. Palage -
Rob Hall -
Robert F. Connelly -
tbarrett -
Tim Ruiz