Re: [registrars] PERSONAL APPEAL !

[Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

Ken,

your post outlines the exact reason execs attempted to gaguge the RC
consensus and draw that up as a recomendtation of the NC.

I suggest you give it a read.

-rick

On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Ken Stubbs wrote:

> FELLOW REGISTRARS...
>
> right now i (and the other names council reps) are in need of  "MORE
> SPECIFIC INPUT"  from the constituancy... specifically a response to michael
> palages voting proposals
>
> WE NEED YES AND NO'S ... (not more discussion at this time.)
>
> we have well over 50 members of the constituancy and yet, to date i have
> postings here from less than 10 members..
>
> at this point in time, the issues are becoming so clouded by some of these
> "recent posts-to-date"  that, frankly,  i would be inclined to abstain as i
> am having trouble finding an concensus fro the constituancy on the TF
> proposal i & the other names council reps have to vote on this wednesday...
>
>  there have been significant changes and addendums made over the last 4
> months but VERY LITTLE RESPONSE OR REACTION  from the overwhelming majority
> of the registrars..
>
> if those registrars who were not present &  voted in bucharest (or
> subsequently , expressed their opinions "post bucharest")   aren't
> interested in "going on the record" or letting your constituancy reps know
> your position, then you put us in a tenous position..
>
> those of you whom i am addressing in this post...........
>
> cant you please take  5 minutes & send a short e-mail to bruce, philip
> grabensee, or myself and let us know what your current "position" is on
> these proposals ?
>
> 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
>
>
> please help us out here ...
>
> ken stubbs
>