[registrars] RE: Registrar Constituency Response to the VGRS WLS Proposal

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

Rick,

I assure you I am not playing a game.  I would like to have answers to
the questions, but I am not going to make an issue out of it if it is a
problem.  We are working to address issues that have been communicated
to us.

Have a good weekend.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick H Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 1:51 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Registrars List; 'touton@icann.org'; 'halloran@icann.org'
> Subject: RE: Registrar Constituency Response to the VGRS WLS Proposal
> 
> 
> 
> Chuck,
> 
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2002, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > Rick,
> >
> > My apologies.  I actually wasn't intending to quote your statement,
> > hence the absence of quotation marks. But my questions still stand
> > because some specific data with regard to what the 
> following quote means
> > would be helpful for me in evaluating next steps in the 
> process: "The
> > overwhelming position of the RC - in fact the unanimous vote of all
> > those taking a position - is to oppose the WLS."
> 
> The WLS Proposal you sent to the DNSO Registrars Constituency 
> -- which is
> not every accredited registrar, just the members of the Constituency.
> Non-Members can not participate in our calls and can not 
> vote; hence The
> Registrars Constituency is a subset of all Accredited Registrars.
> 
> We all know you know this from your extensive experience with 
> ICANN. Why
> you want to play this game is beyond me; especially when you 
> were invited
> to the tele-conference but declined. Silly games Chuck, 
> especially when we
> need clear and direct communications.
> 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > I am not trying to be antagonistic.  When I reviewed the 
> minutes of what
> > I believe is the teleconference call in which the vote was 
> taken, I saw
> > a tremendous amount of information communicated by 
> registrars that could
> > be used to improve the WLS proposal.  But in the response 
> you sent me,
> > none of those constructive suggestions seem to be included except
> > possibly comments about price.
> 
> I am sure you also received a "tremendous amount of information
> communicated by registrars that could be used to improve the 
> WLS proposal"
> as individual registrar submissions.  The Registrars during 
> their call,
> could not find a common ground on which way to improve the 
> WLS proposal.
> Apparently there were as many ways to improve the proposal as 
> there are
> participating members.
> 
> The one thing the participatants could agree on is that they 
> didn't like
> your version of the WLS proposal, it needs to address the concerns we
> highlighted in our response.
> 
> The constituency will be forming a team next week to develop 
> a white paper
> on this subject, where we will discuss more in depth 
> improvements to the
> WLS, and alternatives.
> 
> We would like to see you and your team address just some of the issues
> that the registrars highlighted individually and in our 
> consensus statement
> 
> -rick
>

smime.p7s