[registrars] Registrar meetings in Vancouver

[Ross Rader]

Bob -  your proposal was only sent to the Bylaws Working Group a few 
days ago. Don't you think it would be more appropriate for us to more 
fully consider it before presenting it as a motion to the constituency? 
At the very least, there have been several improvements that have been 
suggested, perhaps we should incorporate these, circulate a second draft 
to the working group and move ahead based on a more widely held 
understanding of the proposal.

I don't think we should be moving ahead with a motion as serious as this 
based on a proposal drafted solely by one member of the constituency.

I also don't believe that our constituency voice will be any less 
coherent or concise because of an administrative deficiency in our 
bylaws. Bhavin, and Elana and Mike before him, have consistently managed 
to present the views of the constituency in a manner that ensures our 
interests are protected without violating the administrative rules we've 
set forth.

Robert F. Connelly wrote:
> 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
>