RE: [registrars] FW: Important: Vote on Taskforce report on WLS-draft response

[Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

Rob,


On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Rob Hall wrote:

> Did I just read this right ?
>
> The executive committee has decided and instructed our names council
> representatives which way to vote ?

the execs discussed getting the vote out, but because of the lack of time
by-laws reauire 7 days notice and 7 days of voting and our voting guy (dan
busarow) and the short time to tell the NC reps what the constituency
desires, the execs decided to sumarize the situation and direct the NC
reps.

This is entirely within reason of what execuitive teams do in any
organization.


> And right in the middle of the entire constituency holding a vote to
> determine where it stands ?

yes, mike whom has been privy to all the execs discussions aparently in
an attemt to confuse everyone has posted a request to vote. Mike has a
relationship with snap names and it isn't clear who he is working for
here...

On this issue mike has recused himself, but continues to subvert the issue
and will not work with the execs any more on it. I look forward to a
explination and full disclosure from mike today.


> I am glad the current voting is being done in public, so that our NC reps
> can clearly see the will of the constituency, and act accordingly, as
> opposed to the exec committee deciding for us.

yes, the more comments the better but we don't have a formal vote going on
here for alot of reasons. I hope some clarity arises from all this.

> I would hope the NC reps take an attitude towards this like Ross has on the
> taskforce.  Namely, to listen to the members of the constituency and act
> accordingly.

If the execs have misstated the direction of the constituency after
listening to 14 months of debate I'd like to understand that too.

-rick



> Rob.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Timothy Denton
> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 11:42 AM
> To: Registrars-ICANN
> Subject: [registrars] FW: Important: Vote on Taskforce report on WLS
> -draft response
>
>
> This is a self-explanatory letter communicating the views of the Executive
> Committee, absent Maichael Palage, who has recused himself, to our three
> members of the Names Council, who will have to debate and discuss the WLS
> issue this week.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Timothy Denton [mailto:tim@tmdenton.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 11:22 AM
> To: Bruce Tonkin; Phillipp Grabensee; Ken Stubbs
> Cc: Michael D. Palage; Timothy Denton; Rick H Wesson; Bryan Evans
> Subject: Important: Vote on Taskforce report on WLS -draft response
>
>
> Bruce, Ken and Phillipp
>
> The purpose of this note is to lay out for you and for the executive
> committee a proposed response to Bruce Tonkin's letter to Rick Wesson, CTO
> of the constituency, on Wednesday July 17, which sought the advice and
> direction of the Registrars' Executive Committee regarding how the NC reps
> of the registrars should vote at the next meeting of the Names Council
> regarding the WLS proposal. In particular I am referring to the advice of
> the Task Force as it was drafted (see below for the text).
>
> On Friday July 20, Rick Wesson, Bryan Evans and I discussed this request for
> direction from you. As you are aware, Mike Palage has recused himself from
> this issue because of a contractual relationship to SnapNames, and we
> thought that, though Mike would be welcome to discuss the mechanics of the
> vote, the issue also concerned on what issues and recommendations of the
> Task Force the constituency would be asked to vote, and how that vote should
> go.
>
> Our choices were very clear. In the time available before the next meeting
> of the Names Council, the registrars would have far less than the one week
> to discuss and the one week to vote that our bylaws provide for. Our manager
> of electronic voting, Dan Busarow, is away on vacation and unavailable in
> the elevant time period. We concluded that it would not be possible to poll
> the membership again on this issue in time to give you a response.
>
> Our next choice was whether we as an executive could advise you as to how to
> vote in the absence of an explicit vote of constiuency members on the
> recommendations of the Task Force, as they are presented below in this
> email. We decided not to duck the issue. We three considereed, that although
> opinion in the registrars' constituency remains divided, that by previous
> votes and informal polls at conferences, the most recent of which was taken
> in Bucharest at the most recent ICANN meeting, that a preponderance of about
> two-thirds of the registrars had opposed the WLS proposals.(see minutes of
> Bucharest meeting at http://www.icann-registrars.org/ )
>
> Recommendations of the Executive Committee (absent the President)
>
> Accordingly, we decided that it was the better course to advise you along
> the lines of the recommendation of the Task Force report itself. That is to
> say:
>
> 1) It would be preferable for our reps to vote according to the first set of
> recommendations A through C of the Task Force report, and that, if they find
> themselves unable or unwilling to do so, then they should vote in favour of
> recommendations A through F of the Task Force report.
>
> 2) It may be that you three will be required to vote on indidivual
> amendments or additions to the SECOND set of protections proposed in
> paragraphs A through F of the Task Force report. In that case you will be
> required to use your discretion. It is not possible in this letter to lay
> out all the contingencies you might face. Nevetheless, the Executive wants
> its NC reps to act in such a way that the concerns of the majority of
> registrars be satisfied, namely to protect them to the greatest extent
> possible against the anti-competitive possibilities of the WLS.
>
> Our reasoning was that a preponderance of the registrars have consistently
> opposed the WLS proposals, and that the Task Force report gives a reasoned
> statement of policy that the executive committee should not interfere with,
> absent compelling reasons.
>
>
> Proxies
>
> It is vital that all of our NC reps give proxies so that a valid meeting of
> the Names Council can be held. The constituency will be watching our
> representatives to ensure that they are participating in this important
> issue.
>
>
>
> Timothy Denton, BA,BCL
> Secretary, ICANN-Registrars Constituency
> 37 Heney Street
> Ottawa, Ontario
> Canada K1N 5V6
> www.tmdenton.com
> 1-613-789-5397 Ottawa
> 1-819-842-2238 North Hatley
> tmdenton@magma.ca
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 5:56 AM
> To: 'Rick Wesson'
> Cc: Registrars Executive Committee; 'Ken Stubbs'
> Subject: Vote on Taskforce report on WLS
>
>
> Hello Rick,
>
> I would like to get a formal vote on the Taskforce report on WLS for the
> registrars constituency.
>
> Would you be able to run a vote-bot for this vote?
>
> It is a controversial topic, and at the current rate I expect that Ken
> Stubbs, Philip Grabensee and myself would probably have to abstain on voting
> on the namescouncil next week
> unless we have a clear direction from the constituency on the taskforce
> report.
>
> I see that we should be voting on the recommendations of the taskforce
> report:
>
> Recommendation to deny the WLS:
>
> A. The ICANN board move with all haste to implement and actively enforce the
> proposed Redemptions Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice
>
> B. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to amend its agreement to
> enable it to introduce its proposed WLS.
>
> C. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to trial the WLS for 12 months.
>
>
> The TF takes into account that the ICANN Board may not accept the policy
> recommendations noted above for a variety of reasons.
>
> Therefore, an alternative recommendation, with conditions, is provided.
>
> Should the ICANN board not accept the policy recommendations noted above and
> grant Verisign's request for a change to its agreement and a 12 month trial
> of its WLS, we would alternatively recommend that WLS be approved with
> conditions:
>
> A. The introduction of WLS is dependent on the implementation and proven
> (for not less than three months) practice envisaged in the proposed
> Redemption Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice and the
> establishment of a standard deletion period.
>
> B. Verisign has proposed an interim Grace Period. The TF recommends that any
> interim Grace Period have all the characteristics and conditions of the
> Redemption Grace Period now in implementation.
>
> C. Several Constituencies remain concerned that a standard deletion period
> be established and implemented. Some TF members believe that this could be
> considered separately from WLS.
>
> D. The WLS include a requirement that notice be provided by the Registry
> (through the registrar) to the existing registrant of a domain name when a
> WLS option is taken out against that registrant's domain name.
>
> E. The WLS include a requirement for full transparency as to who has placed
> a WLS option on a domain name and the registrar that actions the option.
>
> F. Based on the above two points (notice and transparency), the price for
> the WLS be set at the same amount as the current registry fee for a
> registration - the cost of the WLS function being no more, an probably less,
> than a registration - plus any additional costs to "notice and
> transparency', based on Verisign's provision of such validating information
> on such costs to the Board/Staff.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce
>
>