RE: [registrars] WLS - VOTING - Objection

["Donna McGehee" <dmcgehee@bulkregister.com>]

BulkRegister agrees with the comments from Tim Ruiz.  We do not oppose the
WLS and do oppose the TF recommendations as a whole.  We also would support
the recommendation of the Redemptions Grace Period if it were separate from
the rest of the report.

Donna McGehee
BulkRegister

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 1:03 AM
To: ross@tucows.com
Cc: michael@palage.com; registrars@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [registrars] WLS - VOTING - Objection


Ross,

Looks like this is going to go down to the wire. So I'd like lay out Go
Daddy Software's position in case a vote doesn't quite happen in time, or
doesn't give you or the other reps the info you need.

And, in case I wasn't clear before, we DO NOT support placing any
requirement on the NC reps voting in some kind of bloc. We understand the
concerns about "rogue" reps, but are more concerned about closing off any
opportunity for minority views to be represented.

We originally opposed the WLS in any form, but as you may or may not recall
we changed our position later. So, at this time we DO NOT oppose the WLS
and DO oppose the TF recommendations as a whole. We would support the
recommendation regarding the Redemptions Grace Period if it were separate
from the rest of the report.

Tim Ruiz
Go Daddy Software, Inc.


 -------- Original Message --------
   Subject: Re: [registrars] WLS - VOTING - Objection
   From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
   Date: Sun, July 21, 2002 7:17 pm
   To: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>, <registrars@dnso.org>

   I hate to be a stick in the mud, but the ballot does not provide the
   granularity that I (and therefore presumably our reps) require in
   order to cast an informed vote on Tuesday and Wednesday, nor will it
   provide for sufficient insight for us to modify our positions
   appropriately as the document goes through final discussion (and
   possible modification). It is extremely rare that a proposition goes
   through two rounds of discussion and vote and without breaking out the
   ballot as I requested earlier this week, both I and presumably our NC
   reps will be at a severe disadvantage in dealing with the meetings
   over the next three days.

   To put it another way, I have received no input from the TF on the
   recommendations since requesting it a week ago. A binary vote on the
   two recommendations of the TF will not provide me with much further
   information (beyond yea or nay). This will force me into a position
   where I will have to guess, vote my "conscience" or abstain should
   revisions or amendents come into the discussion. The alternative,
   casting a vote on each of the individual recommendations, puts me into
   a position where I have specific knowledge of the wishes of the
   constituency and might be able to assist in moving the final, final
   recommendations towards something that more appropriately suits our
   interests.

   I strongly request that the form of this ballot is reconsidered and
   modified to more closely reflect the proposal I put forth earlier last
   week. (see
   http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02679.html for
   complete details)

   Thanks,

   -rwr
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>
   To: <registrars@dnso.org>
   Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 9:34 PM
   Subject: [registrars] WLS - VOTING


   > We have a problem. On July 24th, this Wednesday, the Names Council
   > is
   going
   > to have a vote on the Names Council Task Force Report on the WLS,
   > and we have two issues before us. The first is whether the
   > constituency supports/opposes the Names Council Task Force report on
   > WLS. The second,
   is
   > how should our Names Council representatives vote. The second is the
   > more complex as it directly goes toward a by-law
   > interpretation/amendment.
   >
   > Unfortunately, there has been a de minimis amount of discussion on
   > this topic, I believe two posts by Jim Archer and Rob Hall. The
   > by-laws require that we have a minimum seven day voting period were
   > feasible, because of
   the
   > Wednesday deadline it would be deemed appropriate to waive the seven
   > day rule with regard to the WLS proposal. However, I have serious
   > concerns
   about
   > amending the constituency by-laws on a 24 hour vote.
   >
   > Further complicating matters is that the neutral third party that we
   usually
   > use to administer our Votebot has been on vacation. Therefore, it
   > looks
   like
   > we will have to do it the old fashion way with designated voting
   > representatives casting their vote to the list. Unless anyone else
   > has an idea?
   >
   > Therefore I would propose that the following ballot be used, as
   > opposed to Jim Archer's original motion that would alter/interpret
   > the by-laws. If there are any objections to this ballot please post
   > it to the list ASAP.
   If
   > there are any objections, the Registrar Executive Committee will
   > agree
   upon
   > a final ballot tomorrow afternoon during our weekly call (Monday 5PM
   > EDT). However, if there are no objections please cast your ballot to
   > the list.
   The
   > Executive Committee will count the ballots and verify that only paid
   > designated voting members are voting and post the results to the
   > list Tuesday evening prior to the Wednesday morning call. In
   > accordance with standard practice the Registrar Names Council
   > Representatives will use
   their
   > best judgment to reflect the position of the Constituency.
   >
   > Best regards,
   >
   > Michael D. Palage
   >
   >
   >
   > PROPOSED BALLOT:
   >
   > With regard to the Names Council Task Force report on the WLS,
   > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020714.TFtransfer-WLS-report.html,
   > and
   the
   > "Preferred Recommendations" That (1) The ICANN board move with all
   > haste
   to
   > implement and actively enforce the proposed Redemptions Grace Period
   > for Deleted Names policy and practice; and (2) The ICANN Board
   > reject
   Verisign's
   > request to amend its agreement to enable it to introduce its
   > proposed WLS; and (3) The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to
   > trial the WLS for 12 months.
   >
   > [ ] I oppose it
   > [ ] I support it
   >
   >
   > With regard to the Names Council Task Force report on the WLS,
   > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020714.TFtransfer-WLS-report.html,
   > and
   the
   > "Alternative Recommendations" regarding pricing, notification,
   accessibility
   > of whois information, etc. (see Alternate Recommendations for all 6
   > recommendations).
   >
   > [ ] I oppose it
   > [ ] I support it