[ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few

[Ron Wiener <Ron@Snapnames.com>]

Ross,

A few clarifications to your last post...  First, I did not mischaracterize
the Registrars Constituency call.  I stated that on that call there were a
small minority of registrars - 21 out of 96.  That is fact.  You are
therefore incorrect in stating to me that my "comment that the call
represented only a handful of interests is therefore inaccurate."   The call
*did* represent only a relative handful of registrars, which was exactly
what I said.   That "the call represented a majority of *member*
registrars," as you say, is of no relevance whatsoever. 

I agree with your distinction between registrars as a whole and the
Registrars Constituency.  However, I pointed out the relatively small scope
of registrar opposition to the WLS, and the utterly conflicted interests of
most of that opposition, precisely because you and others have not been
consistent in your own statements representing what "the registrars", as a
whole, oppose:

"[The WLS proposal]  . . .", Ross Rader, Director of Innovation and Research
for Toronto-based registrar Tucows told Dotcom Scoop, "could literally take
forever to pass.  There is great opposition to the proposal."

"The registrars had a conference call and all of them opposed the VeriSign
proposal," Elana Broitman, Director of Policy for New York-based
Register.com told Dotcom Scoop.

Your statement that there "is great opposition" among registrars, and
Elana's omission of just what "all of them" really means, overlooks your
more recent qualification that the relatively small Registrars Constituency
is merely a subset of the registrars as a whole - whose voices you have not
heard and whose votes you cannot therefore presume to "great opposition"
among registrars as a whole.   The registrars deserve a balanced view, thus
our commentary this morning.  It's important that the full community be
aware of the customer-first approach to the WLS proposal as well.

You also state, "Note that it was not the purpose of this call to
counter-propose, redefine or otherwise negotiate the proposals on the
table."  However, the notes from the meeting also suggest that in addition
to trying to form consensus on the WLS, there was additional debate about
and voting on alternative proposals.  Some of these papers were posted to
the group before any response to the WLS. 

You state that 17 registrars "opposed" the WLS proposal, and you imply that
my assessment of the voting is in error.  However, I made very clear that 6
registrars opposed the WLS unconditionally, while another six actually
expressed interest in offering the proposal if it were modified in certain
respects.  Neither your preferred method of counting nor Rick Wesson's
insistence on a categorically binary voting measurement changes what the
registrars themselves actually said.

I have no comment on your final characterizations of my statements, as I
believe my statements speak for themselves.  Interested persons are invited
to return to my original, uninterpreted statements.

Cheers,

Ron 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 9:33 AM
> To: Ron Wiener; ga@dnso.org; icann-delete@total.confusion.net
> Cc: Registrars@Dnso. Org
> Subject: Re: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the
> Few
> 
> Ron,
> 
> I haven't yet had a time to digest the entire PDF, so these comments are
> limited to a specific portion of the document. Further comments on the
> rest
> of the document later.
> 
> You have completely mischaracterized the Registrar teleconference from
> last
> week.
> 
> First, this was a constituency conference call, not an accredited
> registrar
> conference call. The difference between these two groups is slight but
> different. Every accredited registrar is not necessarily a member of the
> DNSO, nor the registrar constituency. The DNSO process only accounts for
> those that have self-selected to participate in the process. As such, the
> constituency can only speak for those that wish to participate. Your
> comment
> that the call represented only a handful of interests is therefore
> inaccurate. In fact, the call represented a majority of member registrars.
> 
> Second, the question under discussion was whether or not the proposals
> under
> discussion merited endorsement by the constituency or not. This was in
> response to Chuck Gomes request that registrars provide their comments to
> VGRS by the 18th of this month. It is difficult for a constituency to
> determine whether or not support should be given for a particular proposal
> if the membership has not been consulted. Note that it was not the purpose
> of this call to counter-propose, redefine or otherwise negotiate the
> proposals on the table. VGRS has indicated on a number of occasions that
> they view this as counter-productive and are only interested in feedback
> on
> this particular proposal. While this particular VGRS request was curious,
> and somewhat disappointing, the constituency attempted to fulfill it as
> requested.
> 
> Third, you indicate that only six opposed the WLS proposal, in fact, the
> number was actually 17. Further, the notes from the call indicate
> explicitly, that only one registrar would be offering the service
> regardless
> of the outcome but that they did not support the proposal as currently
> written.
> 
> Fourth, you state that a handful of registrars have appointed themselves
> to
> a drafting committee to come up with an alternate proposal, thus
> recreating
> the process that had started six months ago. Two comments here. First, the
> "handful of registrars" were appointed by the constituency to draft a
> response to the VGRS proposal as Chuck Gomes requested. Responses such as
> the one that VGRS has requested do not magically appear overnight as if
> left
> by the tooth fairy. It is common constituency process to strike groups
> such
> as this in order that the constituency has a clear and concise statement
> of
> position on various issues. Second, the mandate of this group is first and
> foremost, to draft a response, as requested, to Verisign concerning the
> WLS.
> 
> Based on this, you then attempt to draw a straight line between the
> obvious
> consensus of the constituency and the self-interest of registrars catering
> to speculators. You try to do so based on the outstanding comments of the
> registrars that have never participated in the DNSO process and the
> self-interests of registrars at the table. I believe that I have
> sufficiently illustrated the fallacy of the first statement. To the second
> point I can only say that *every* participant in the DNSO process is
> self-interested. This is why the constituency structure is so important -
> it
> serves to balance the inherent self-interest in the overall structure.
> Even
> if we buy this argument that a few self-interested registrars are somehow
> determining the constituency consensus, please note that 4 out of the top
> five registrars (who constitute an even smaller percentage than the 10%
> that
> you point to in your dissertation) unanimously do not support this
> proposal.
> The fifth, far from being supportive of the proposition at this point, has
> reserved comment until they have finished their analysis. These registrars
> represent in excess of 90% of all domain names registered.
> 
> In another portion, you plead with the community to react on your behalf
> lest us registrars hijack the decision making process. If you were serious
> about this, you would open up the "decision making process" to include
> other
> impacted stakeholders (as opposed to explicitly and solely inviting
> registrar feedback) and allowing the consensus policy process to take its
> natural course. You hold these words up, yet you seem to fail to
> understand
> them.
> 
> Finally, you hold up your arguments as a defense of the common man from
> evil
> speculative interests while claiming that the registrars are clearly in a
> conflict of interest in representing their own interests. How do you
> justify
> the implicit paradox that this represents?
> 
> I am deeply disappointed with this obvious attempt to distract the
> participants in this discussion from what the real issues are. I am more
> disappointed by your attempts to demonize your direct customers. You
> expect
> us to both buy your arguments and your products - which would be a
> pleasure
> if you didn't appear intent on destroying the character of registrars as a
> group.
> 
> I do have one question for VGRS and SnapNames however based on a couple of
> statements made by Chuck last October concerning
> 
> "ICANN would certainly need to be involved if any changes were required to
> existing agreements or existing policy."
> 
> and
> 
> "In response to Ross' question about where we go from here, I stated that
> I
> am still willing to work with ICANN with regard to policy issues and
> within
> VGRS to develop estimated time frames for the possible implementation of
> the
> [WLS] proposal."
> 
> When do you expect that this will finally happen? My preference is that it
> occur before you arbitrarily launch the service without appropriately
> consulting the community. Perhaps this is a self-interested minority view
> as
> well however, so I might be off-base wth this one.
> 
> -rwr
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron Wiener" <Ron@Snapnames.com>
> To: <ga@dnso.org>; <icann-delete@total.confusion.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 11:23 AM
> Subject: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few
> 
> 
> > Rather than respond to individual response documents and e-mail posts,
> > please find attached a concise document, in PDF format.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Ron
> >
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html