RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots

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

Tim,

Sorry for any confusion on my part, I just saw a growing number of registrar
vote/think out loud on the list anmd just wanted to prevent any potential
confusion.

You are correct that all ballots are open for discussion.

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 12:15 PM
> To: 'Michael D. Palage'; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots
>
>
> Mike,
>
> I wasn't attempting to vote, just to share my thoughts on these ballots
> as of today, and looking for some clarification on ballot 3.
>
> These are open to discussion, correct?
>
> Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 11:07 AM
> To: Tim Ruiz; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots
>
> Tim,
>
> Thanks for the feedback, but we will be voting using the software. The
> purpose of posting the ballots was to see if any one had any proposed
> rewording/amendments.
>
> The next round of TLDs will be exclusively sponsored, however, I believe
> that at least some that are likely to be proposed will be of a much
> larger
> registrant community that the original three. However, that being said,
> I
> believe that with some education, marketing and outreach some of the
> original sponsored TLDs could reach a much more larger market.
>
> I have some additional ideas in this area, but I am buried. However, I
> will
> share them with you and the group latter on.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mike
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 12:00 PM
> > To: 'Michael D. Palage'; registrars@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots
> >
> >
> > Ballot 1 - We would support.
> >
> > Ballot 2 - We would likely support.
> >
> > Ballot 3 - We would be interested in hearing from others on this
> topic.
> >
> > How is what Stuart is proposing for this round of sTLDs any different
> > than the first round? And given the impact that aero, coop, and museum
> > has had on our business I'm not sure why we should even care.
> >
> > The comments added regarding gTLDs are good but leave a few questions
> > also.
> >
> > >(1) ICANN should, in parallel, move forward with the creation of an
> > >Accredited Registry Services Provider program which, having been
> based
> > on
> > >objective criteria, facilitates competition, innovation and continued
> > >growth within this nascent sector;
> >
> > I understand the purpose, but in practice, will this require gTLD
> > applicants to have a prior arrangement with an accredited provider? Or
> > only that if approved, they must either become or use an accredited
> > provider? I'm not sure I'm getting how this will facilitate
> competition.
> > It seems a little like the chicken or the egg issue.
> >
> > >- that delegants and operators be encouraged to leverage existing
> > registry
> > >protocols and not create new ones
> >
> > This seems to imply that the best protocols already exist. I agree
> that
> > life would be much easier if we had a single protocol to deal with. On
> > the other hand I would not want to stifle innovation and potential
> > future benefits to save a little time today. Besides, so far, even
> with
> > EPP, each implementation has been different. I don't think we could
> > support this ballot with this comment as part of it.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On
> > Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 6:33 AM
> > To: registrars@dnso.org
> > Subject: [registrars] Proposed Ballots
> > Importance: High
> >
> > Hello All:
> >
> > In Rio the following ballots were discussed in addition to the
> currently
> > proposed Bulk Whois Ballot. It was agreed that by posting these
> ballots
> > simultaneously in a batch we would hopefully maximize voter turn out
> to
> > a
> > level similar to the last elections. Ballots #2 and #3 are being put
> out
> > for
> > public comment for the first time although they were discussed in Rio.
> > If
> > there are any comments or friendly amendments please make them as soon
> > as
> > possible.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Michael D. Palage
> >
> >
> >
> > BALLOT #1 - BULK WHOIS BALLOT
> >
> > The Registrar Constituency proposes that ICANN eliminate the Bulk
> WHOIS
> > obligation since it: forces registrars to sell one
> > of their most valuable assets -- their entire customer list -- to
> > competitors and third parties; raises significant privacy concerns for
> > both
> > registrants and registrars; and harms consumers by contributing to
> > unsolicited marketing campaigns.
> >
> > [] I support the statement as a formal position of the Registrar
> > Constituency;
> > [] I  do not support the statement as a formal position of the
> Registrar
> > Constituency;
> > [] Abstain.
> >
> >
> > BALLOT #2 - WIPO UDRP BALLOT
> >
> > The ICANN Registrar Constituency played an active role in the creation
> > and
> > implementation of ICANN Uniform Dispute Resolution  Policy (UDRP) back
> > in
> > 1999. The UDRP in conjunction with national laws have provided a
> > reasonable
> > approach toward balancing the rights of domain name holders versus the
> > rights of third parties. However, the Registrar Constituency expresses
> > significant concern about the proposed expanse of the UDRP as set
> forth
> > in
> > the letter from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to
> > ICANN
> > dated February 21, 2003.
> >
> > The ICANN Registrar constituency opposes any expanse of the UDRP to
> > include
> > country names or the names and acronyms of International
> > Intergovernmental
> > Organizations (IGOs). Such an expanse of the UDRP was never
> contemplated
> > or
> > bargained for, and if approved would threaten the underlying viability
> > of
> > the UDRP itself.
> >
> > [] I support the statement as a formal position of the Registrar
> > Constituency;
> > [] I  do not support the statement as a formal position of the
> Registrar
> > Constituency;
> > [] Abstain.
> >
> >
> > BALLOT #3 - New TLDs
> >
> > The ICANN gTLD Registrar Constituency continues to support the
> expansion
> > of
> > the namespace in a controlled and responsible manner. The Constituency
> > supports  the criteria for expansion set forth in Stuart Lynn's paper,
> > released on March 25, 2003
> > (http://www.icann.org/riodejaneiro/stld-rfp-topic.htm), as a practical
> > step
> > forward in a discussion that has been historically beleaguered by
> > theoretical discussion of academic improbabilities. The Registrar
> > Constituency believes that the Board of Directors of ICANN should
> adopt
> > these final criteria, without delay and further that;
> >
> > (1) ICANN should, in parallel, move forward with the creation of an
> > Accredited Registry Services Provider program which, having been based
> > on
> > objective criteria, facilitates competition, innovation and continued
> > growth
> > within this nascent sector;
> >
> > (2) ICANN's Board of Directors move to implement a scalable long-term
> > plan
> > that institutionalizes the processes by which new generic top-level
> > domain
> > names are chartered and delegated and that such processes should
> > governed by
> > the following broad principles;
> >
> > - that the ongoing expansion continue take place in a controlled and
> > responsible manner,
> >
> > - that any criteria used to evaluate charter and delegation proposals
> be
> > objective and equitably applied to all proposals
> >
> > - that delegants and operators be encouraged to leverage existing
> > registry
> > protocols and not create new ones
> >
> > - that delegants be encouraged to explore and implement new business
> > models
> >
> > - that businesses be allowed to fail, but that strong redelegation
> > practices
> > be immediately implemented to ensure TLD
> > continuity
> >
> > - that registrar competition continue to be encouraged and remain a
> > cornerstone of this growing market and that all accredited registrars
> > continue to have equal and equitable access to registry operations and
> > services
> >
> > [] I support these statements as a formal position of the Registrar
> > Constituency;
> >
> > [] I do not support these statements as a formal position of the
> > Registrar
> > Constituency;
> >
> > [] Abstain
> >
> >
> >
>
>