RE: [registrars] Answers to Various Questions

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>]

Jim:

In my original post I used "i.e." to represent an example. I NEVER said 80%
was defined as consensus. I have no idea where you came up with this idea.

Having a by-law discussion/amendment simultaneously with a vote on WLS would
not seem prudent, but I have no objections.

The "straw poll" was taken because the report was presented to us in
Romania. The fact that 13 people voted against it conflicts with your
original statement that only deep pocket registrars can travel to these
meetings and vote. If you would like to make a proposal to amend the by-laws
so that the constituency can never say anything without a full vote fine by
me. But be warned that complex ICANN issues are always raised when people
are in the plane to the meeting, i.e. BluePrint & WLS report. Do not blame
me. Just look at the amended VRSN contracts last year. Under your proposed
rule Registrars would have been able to say nothing about these, which
doesn't seem right. The Executive Committee and Names Council people are
elected to represent the constituency, and I think to the most part we do a
good job.

The DNSO has taken no vote on WLS, I do not know why you believe they have.
The Registrar Constituency which is one of seven constituencies voted on
proposal. That proposal was forwarded to the Names Council which has now
presented us a new document which our Names Council representatives must
vote on now.

There are numerous anti-trust issues, and I suggest you consult your
attorney for specific guidance on what is best for your company. The
following website also has some useful common sense advise that I believe
you may find informative, see
http://www.antitrust.org/aei/Guidelines.htmHowever. I occasionaly receive
inquiries from registrars regarding alleged predatory conduct by
registration authorities, and in response to these inquiries I direct them
to the appropriate governmental agency.