RE: [registrars] RE: WLS

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>]

Bruce,

You're not suggesting that member-registrars' votes should weighted by CNO
market share, are you?

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Beckwith, Bruce
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 1:52 PM
To: 'Jim Archer'
Cc: Registrars Mail List
Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: WLS


Jim,

With all due respect, please consider what I believe you are stating:

In a group of 45 or so registrars (approximate number of dues paying members
of the Registrar Constituency), some with as few as 6 CNO registrations as
of December 31, 2001 (SnapNames State of the Domain - Year-End 2001), if 23
RC member registrars vote a particular way, even if their volume only
amounts to 12% of all gTLD registrations, that this becomes the consensus of
the Registrar Constituency?  Would you define this as consensus, in the
spirit of ICANN's definition of consensus?

Regards,

Bruce

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Jim Archer [mailto:jarcher@registrationtek.com]
Sent:	Thursday, February 21, 2002 2:14 PM
To:	Rob Hall; Registrars Mail List
Subject:	RE: [registrars] RE: WLS

Hi Rob...

It is fairly normal for a voting body to adopt policy based upon a majority
vote.  In this case, as demonstrated in Virginia last weekend, a very large
majority of registrars are opposed to the implementation of WLS, as least
as currently proposed.

Jim

--On Thursday, February 21, 2002 1:56 PM -0500 Rob Hall <rob@momentous.ca>
wrote:

> Rick, am I hearing you correctly ?
>
> Suddenly, consensus equals 50% + 1 ?
>
> If so, how are you calculating and/or weighting the voting ?  Is it by
> member ?  Domains under management ?   Some other weighting ?
>
> To me, it seems foolish to try and say 50% + 1 is consensus.  We have
> always strived towards building true consensus, and coming to positions
> that the most can live with (not just half). I am concerned that if we
> start down this road, in the future, our positions will be more about
> getting 50% of the vote as opposed to putting in the extra effort to try
> and gain true consensus.
>
> This would also imply that the RC could publish something as a "consensus
> document", when the largest 49 registrars in the world said "no" and the
> smallest 51 said "yes" (assuming there were 100 members).
>
> I know that this is something that many constituencies, and indeed ICANN,
> have wrestled with, but I would hate to see us go with 50%+1 as
> representing "absolute consensus".
>
> I know I am pleased that even though we are strong competitors on many
> fronts, that we have always tried very hard to work together on issues of
> mutual concern.  I have seen both large and small companies, with
> sometimes very opposite views, work together to try and find common
> ground and truly reach "consensus".  I would not want to ever see these
> efforts curtailed or avoided, as it is what truly makes us strong.
>
> Rob.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Rick H Wesson
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 6:30 PM
> To: Jim Archer
> Cc: Elana Broitman; Registrars List
> Subject: Re: [registrars] RE: WLS
>
>
>
> Jim,
>
> If there is a majority vote for the comments on the WLS then they will be
> listed as our official consensus position.
>
> -rick
>
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Jim Archer wrote:
>
>> Rick...
>>
>> --On Wednesday, February 20, 2002 1:36 PM -0800 Rick H Wesson
>> <wessorh@ar.com> wrote:
>>
>> > We will also be voting on the next document produced by the drafting
> team
>> > and will add all those voting in the affirmative on the document as
>> > a signator.
>>
>> Will the comments be listed as the official position of the RC?



************************************
James W. Archer
Registration Technologies, Inc.
10 Crestview Drive
Greenville, RI 02828
401-949-4768 (voice)
401-949-5814 (fax)
jarcher@RegistrationTek.com