<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few
Ross and all assembly members,
Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> > and determined Position on the Delete issue. Currently with the
> > recent comments of our new Chair, Thomas Rossler, it doesn't
> > seem that we will be given the RIGHT to vote on this and perhaps
>
> For some reason, only a very narrow selection of impacted stakeholders were
> requested to feedback on the VGRS proposal. I have heard rumblings that this
> may be expanded in the future, but this is only rumor at this point. It may
> be the case that the registrar constituency was selected to "guinea pig" the
> proposal in order that something more mature could be presented to the rest
> of the DNSO - time will tell I suppose.
The this proposal was selected as a "guinea pig" to buy time (For whom
I am not sure no do I understand why) for a more mature proposal to
be developed, it would seem than that a WG for Delete and the poll
that I posted for the GA members can only help determine or clarify
at least the members of the DNSO GA.
However I am sure others would prefer a TF for Delete where
participation
is limited and thereby unrepresentative accordingly. However a more
straight forward approach would be, or would have been more
appropriate and cause much less confusion as the WLS proposal
announcement has done or at least seemingly done. So your right
IMHO that time will tell... The only problem that I have and the
registrants
may have, is that as time passes, trust decreases and any future
proposal
will possibly suffer from creditability as a result.
>
>
> -rwr
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> To: "Don Brown" <donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net>
> Cc: "genie@ magi" <genie@magi.net>; <ga@dnso.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 1:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits
> of the Few
>
> > Don and all assembly members,
> >
> > Don, your quite right. In this country, my country, TX, >;) we have
> > a right, and I would argue a duty, to vote. However the GA members
> > are not being given that opportunity on many issues, the "Delete and WLS"
> > issues or most recent interest. This is why I and I believe Patrick
> > put out two polls for the DNSO GA members to demonstrate their
> > VOTE. I believe that given an opportunity without fear of some
> > sort of retribution, GA members will vote. I believe that we
> > NEED a "Delete WG" in order to come up with a GA generated
> > and determined Position on the Delete issue. Currently with the
> > recent comments of our new Chair, Thomas Rossler, it doesn't
> > seem that we will be given the RIGHT to vote on this and perhaps
> > other issues that need addressing for instance the .ORG v5.4
> > final report from the .ORG TF, unless it happens to be a issue
> > that Thomas, our newly elected chair supports....
> >
> > Don Brown wrote:
> >
> > > So, it appears that those who chose to vote represented the majority,
> > > in terms of market share. Clearly, then, Ross's statement was correct
> > > in that sense.
> > >
> > > However, I submit that Ross's statement was also correct with respect
> > > to the issue raised by Ron Wiener, about the 75 non-voting/not counted
> > > registrars.
> > >
> > > In this country, TX :), we all have a right to vote, but we must get
> > > involved in the process by registering to vote and actually going to
> > > the polls. It seems to me that these 75 chose not to be involved,
> > > since no one has presented any facts to the contrary.
> > >
> > > Therefore, regardless of market share, Ross was correct in his
> > > statement. When folks don't get involved, register and cast a ballot,
> > > no one counts their vote -- to do so is mere speculation.
> > >
> > > Accordingly, Ron Wiener's issue about the 75 other Registrars fails on
> > > its face, making it moot.
> > >
> > > On the opposite end of the spectrum, there has been no factual
> > > presentation of those who do favor WLS. Besides Snap and the
> > > Registry, who actually favors and supports WLS? I mean hard facts,
> > > not conjecture and speculation.
> > >
> > > At the very least, those opposed to WLS can be quantified.
> > >
> > > Tuesday, January 15, 2002, 4:25:52 PM, genie@ magi <genie@magi.net>
> wrote:
> > > gm> William:
> > > >>Perhaps you can clear up, Ron, exactly what percentage of new
> > > >>registrations those 75 non-participating registrars are responsible
> > > >>for (exclusing Verisign's own registrar, of course, whose conflict of
> > > >>interest is clear).
> > > >>
> > > >>The number of registrars is less important to me, and probably to
> > > >>most, than the number of registrations they are responsible for.
> > >
> > > gm> Using some data available
> > > gm> (bowrrowing David's math from
> > > gm> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00258.html
> > > gm> can anyone please help with the blanks?
> > >
> > > gm> EST
> > > gm> Marketshare
> > > gm> ------Registrar-------------------------WLS
> > > gm> AW Registry (all west) mike brown opposed
> > > gm> 1.80% ENOM - Paul opposed
> > > gm> 1.07% Tim - GoDaddy opposed
> > > gm> Ken Stubbs - CORE/NC
> > > gm> Bob Connly - PSI Japan obstain
> > > gm> 11.17% Elona - Register.com opposed
> > > gm> Donny Simonton - Intercosmos opposed
> > > gm> Steve - DomainBank opposed
> > > gm> Margie - Mark Monitor obstain
> > > gm> 45.45% Bruce Bechwith - Verisign Registrar n/c
> > > gm> Mike Paliage
> > > gm> Steinrl - Active ISP obstain
> > > gm> 4.34% Bruce Tonkin - MelborneIT opposed
> > > gm> 5.23% Tom - Bulk Registrar opposed
> > > gm> 1.51% Geoge - Dotster opposed
> > > gm> Sigfried - Joker opposed
> > > gm> 8.38% Ross - Tucows opposed
> > > gm> 2.66% Werner - CORE opposed
> > > gm> Tom - Slund.de opposed
> > > gm> Jason - Media Venture
> > > gm> Alice's - Rick opposed
> > > gm> David W - IA Registry opposed
> > > gm> Speed Names - Nicoli opposed
> > > gm> Rob - NameScout opposed
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >>If those 75 are responsible, collectively, for less than 50% of new
> > > >>registrations, and it wouldn't surprise me if the percentage was
> > > >>VASTLY lower than that, then your points here are really
> > > >>insignificant, and self serving.
> > > >>
> > > gm> Cheers
> > > gm> Genie Livingstone
> > >
> > > gm> --
> > > gm> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > > gm> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > > gm> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > gm> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> > > ----
> > > Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA Internet Concepts, Inc.
> > > donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net http://www.inetconcepts.net
> > > PGP Key ID: 04C99A55 (972) 788-2364 Fax: (972) 788-5049
> > > Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
> > > ----
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
> > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > Contact Number: 972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> >
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|