RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> I believe you are truly undervaluing the collective 
> intelligence of the constituency.

Your opinion is your perogative, but I venture that you shouldn't speak
on behalf of the constituency unless the constituency has spoken. This
is a new issue and we need time to collectively find the root of the
issue and determine how we preferto deal with the issue. One can also
undervalue the collective intelligence of the constituency when one
presumes to know what the best interests of the constituency are without
consulting it.

> Under our by-laws Hakon has a "voice". If he makes self 
> serving biased comments then the rest of the members will 
> make a decision as to his intention. This is really no 
> different than when a certain large registrar provided us 
> with survey results suggesting slamming supported the need 
> for an AutoNac policy.

Under our by-laws PersonalNames has a voice, and as much as I dislike
it, I am not proposing that we do anything about it. I can however put
forward for the consideration of our membership a proposition that
limits whom PersonalNames can delegate to this forum. Had Verisign
replaced Bruce Beckwith with Chuck Gomes for the purpose of representing
Verisign Registrar's interest in the transfers discussion, I also would
have had a problem with that.

So, in that very applicable regard, there is a tremendous difference
between the two situations - your analogy just doesn't hold together.

> I still do not see a 
> specific problem or potential problem that requires us to 
> undertake the radical stance you have proposed. 

This is not a radical stance - in fact, I believe that the response I
propose is directly proportionate to the size and importance of the
problem that stands before us. Either registrars can take active steps
to ensure that our constituency remains focused on a registrar-centric
agenda, or we can cede control to the registries. This is a very simple
question which, I believe, is adequately and appropriately answered by
the proposal that I have put forward.


                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/blog


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org 
> [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 10:46 AM
> To: ross@tucows.com; 'Bhavin Turakhia'; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
> 
> 
> Ross,
> 
> I believe you are truly undervaluing the collective 
> intelligence of the constituency.
> 
> When one of the larger registrars opposed some of the 
> transfer procedures that were designed to allow smaller and 
> growing registrars to obtain their market share the 
> constituency pushed forward with a proposal that was 
> equitable to all registrars small and large.
> 
> Under our by-laws Hakon has a "voice". If he makes self 
> serving biased comments then the rest of the members will 
> make a decision as to his intention. This is really no 
> different than when a certain large registrar provided us 
> with survey results suggesting slamming supported the need 
> for an AutoNac policy.
> 
> Following up on Bhavin;s question what strategic marketing 
> information has TUCOWS provided. I still do not see a 
> specific problem or potential problem that requires us to 
> undertake the radical stance you have proposed. Moreover if 
> every piece of marketing information provided to 
> PersonalNames is provide to every registrar where is the 
> potential bias?
> 
> 
> Mike
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 10:30 AM
> > To: 'Bhavin Turakhia'; 'Michael D. Palage'; registrars@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
> >
> >
> > > Ross - can you exemplify, a particular hypothetical case 
> where this 
> > > would create an issue??
> >
> > A very practical and applicable example is that 
> PersonalNames putting 
> > forward Hakon as their representative. As a co-founder, former 
> > director of sales and marketing, VP product management who 
> currently 
> > sits on the Global Names Registry board of directors, Mr. 
> Haugnes is 
> > in possession of, or has access to significant data and/or 
> information 
> > regarding the operation of my business and that of every 
> other .name 
> > Registrar. Now, we are expected to treat him as an equal 
> within this 
> > constituency as a fellow registrar. This creates a circumstance 
> > whereby GNR, the registry is allowed to drive or influence 
> the agenda 
> > of this constituency because of Hakon's conflicting 
> registry interests 
> > and access to sensitive information about the operation of our 
> > respective businesses.
> >
> > This creates an untenable situation that we have the option 
> to avoid 
> > by acting now, before it becomes an issue.
> >
> >
> >                        -rwr
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the 
> shore like an 
> > idiot."
> > - Steven Wright
> >
> > Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/blog
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Bhavin Turakhia [mailto:bhavin.t@directi.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 10:20 AM
> > > To: ross@tucows.com; 'Michael D. Palage'; registrars@dnso.org
> > > Subject: RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > may be in possession of, or come into possession of, sensitive 
> > > > information regarding the operation of my business.
> > >
> > > Ross - can you exemplify, a particular hypothetical case 
> where this 
> > > would create an issue??
> > >
> > > bhavin
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
>