RE: [registrars] WLS vote in Bucharest by Registrars
The point is that, "there has only been on formal vote taken by the
RC on the WLS"
Are you requesting the RC to re-evaluate that vote?
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Rob Hall wrote:
> OK .. now I am confused. You say the DNSO had a formal vote on WLS. Do you
> mean the Registrar Constituency, or the GA of the DNSO ?
> I assume you mean the RC and the vote that took place on the position paper
> in early March.
> Given that the WLS has changed and morphed quite a bit since then, do you
> not think it is a good idea to evaluate what it is today, rather than back
> in Feb ? I know that I am impressed that the Registry seems to be
> addressing some of our concerns, and their position now is much better (in
> my opinion) than it was back in Feb.
> I also believe that they have addressed some of the concerns raised by the
> committee. ROSS: Perhaps you can fill us in here. Have VGRS's recent
> changes addressed any of the points the committee made in their preliminary
> report ? Do you know when the final report will be published by the
> committee ?
> I know that I want to keep an open mind, and look at new proposals and
> evaluate them on their merits, as opposed to singing the same old tune out
> of habit. Do you have any comments on the new proposal ?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On
> Behalf Of Jim Archer
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 3:38 PM
> To: Bruce Tonkin
> Cc: 'email@example.com'; Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Subject: Re: [registrars] WLS vote in Bucharest by Registrars
> Bruce, the DNSO did have a formal vote on WLS. In a written motion that
> was circulated to all members and voted using the votebot Rick maintains,
> the resolution strongly opposing WLS was adopted by a 3 to 1 margin. In
> other words, approximately 75% of DNSO members voting voted in favor of
> this resolution, which strongly opposed WLS.
> The DNSO has voiced its strong opposition to WLS formally on a motion that
> was presented to the entire membership, given time for debate, and voted.
> The "straw poll" taken at the meeting in VA predates this formal motion,
> which still stands as the DNSO's official position on WLS.
> --On Thursday, July 11, 2002 6:54 PM +1000 Bruce Tonkin
> <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
> > Hello All,
> >> > In addition, I understand that in the Registrar Constituency a vote
> >> > was taken on whether to support the report or not and the result was
> >> > 13 in favor of it, 10 against.
> > That is not correct. A straw poll was taken of attending registrars.
> > 13 voted in favour of the report from the Names Council taskforce (which
> > recommended that WLS not be approved)
> > 9 (by my notes) voted against the report of the Names Council
> > 1 abstention
> > Tim Denton has previously posted the minutes of that meeting to the
> > registrars list on
> > 26 June 2002.
> > At the Bucharest meeting it was planned to send the document for vote via
> > the registrars mailing list. This did not happen.
> > I understand that the Task Force recommendations are likely to go out for
> > public comment before being voted on by the Names Council.
> > The Registrars should also vote formally on this, so that the names
> > council reps can represent the views of the constituency.
> > On the basis of the straw poll above it seems as though 56% of those
> > present voted in favour of WLS. This was not a clear consensus to me,
> > but it is a difficult issue.
> > We had to vote on the names council task force report as a whole.
> > I personally don't accept the WHOLE report, but accept many statements
> > within it in regard to delete issues. I commented on some of the
> > statements at the public forum in Bucharest. In particular I do not
> > believe that approving WLS will significantly reduce competition in the
> > domain name market.
> > Whether WLS as a new service is good or bad, I will let our customers
> > decide. We have not done any market testing of this service, and it is
> > not Melbourne IT's highest priority.
> > Regardless of any personal view, I will represent the views of the
> > constituency whatever the majority believe.
> > Regards,
> > Bruce Tonkin
> Jim Archer, CEO
> Registration Technologies, Inc.
> 10 Crestview Drive
> Greenville, RI 02828
> voice: 401-949-4768
> fax: 401-949-5814