Re: [ga] Straw Poll on Working Group
Rick and all assembly members,
Although your suggestion of after-the-fact WG or god forbid
Task Force for dealing with Delete is obviously in good faith
Rick, I think it is clear that the DNSO GA would prefer a WG,
first of all, and a WG for Delete that would come up with it's own
proposal that represents a broad range of stakeholders, including
Registrars, Registries, and most importantly Registrants. And the
GA members want it now, not later
I would prefer that such a Delete WG be one that is in line with
the practice and procedure of the DNSO GA and requested
by the GA Chair, to the NC and secretariat. However the voice
of the WG poll of this thread seems to be leaning in the direction
of such a WG that is determined BY the GA members.
I also noticed Rick, that you have not voted in the Poll (See
below)... Perhaps if you wish your position to be known
in an official way, you should consider doing so?
Rick H Wesson wrote:
> I'd suggest to take a wait-and-see approach. VGRS will work with the
> registrars to get a proposal we all believe in. Once we have something to
> worry about then a working group would be beneficial, but now it seems
> that the WLS as proposed is a non-starer.
> Once there is a proposal on the table for the DNSO as a whole to evaluate
> then a working group/taskforce/et al would be appropriate.
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> > All
> > "Registrars are trashing VeriSign's proposal to create a pricey waiting list
> > for registered domains, calling it too expensive and anti-competitive. A
> > consortium of registrars summarized its concerns in a letter submitted to
> > VeriSign late in the day on Friday."
> > http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,49756,00.html
> > Although there seems to be reasonable support for an open working group on the
> > subject of domain name expirations, it seems that the Chair has his own views.
> > I'd therefore ask those who haven't responded to the straw poll to take a
> > moment to indicate their views as follows:
> > In favor of an open working group set up by the GA on its own behalf [ ]
> > In favor of an open working group set up by the NC at the Chair's request[ ]
> > Opposed to any sort of working group however constituted [ ]
> > On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 14:15:56 -0600, Don Brown wrote:
> > > The rudimentary issue identified, is the need for the development of a
> > > workable procedure for dropping domain names so that: (1) it resolves
> > > the Registry's capacity issue (2) so "everyone" is on a level playing
> > > field; Registrars, Resellers, Speculators, Registrants and all other
> > > interested parties (3) so that it neither stifles competition nor
> > > allows a monopolistic, or other unfair, advantage.
> > This makes a good start at a proposed Terms of Reference.
> > Regards
> > Patrick Corliss
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
> > Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
> Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
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.
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 email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html