<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re[2]: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few
Tuesday, January 15, 2002, 11:09:52 PM, Ross Wm. Rader <ross@tucows.com> 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
RWR> For some reason,
This may be the reason (snip from 1st paragraph of WLS proposal):
1. Introduction
In response to a formal request by Rick Wesson on behalf of the Registrar Constituency,
VeriSign, Inc. is providing this paper to describe its proposed Domain Name Wait Listing Service
(WLS).
RWR> only a very narrow selection of impacted stakeholders were
RWR> requested to feedback on the VGRS proposal. I have heard rumblings that this
RWR> may be expanded in the future, but this is only rumor at this point. It may
RWR> be the case that the registrar constituency was selected to "guinea pig" the
RWR> proposal in order that something more mature could be presented to the rest
RWR> of the DNSO - time will tell I suppose.
RWR> -rwr
RWR> ----- Original Message -----
RWR> From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
RWR> To: "Don Brown" <donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net>
RWR> Cc: "genie@ magi" <genie@magi.net>; <ga@dnso.org>
RWR> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 1:33 AM
RWR> Subject: Re: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits
RWR> 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>
RWR> 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
>>
>>
RWR> --
RWR> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
RWR> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
RWR> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
RWR> 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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|