<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots
> I second this motion
> Paul
If it were up to me, I would prefer to see our constituency seek
proposals from the membership regarding how port 43 could best be dealt
with. Tiered access/restricted access is one way that the problem can be
addressed. This may not be the best way to deal with the concerns that
have been raised. I would be hesitant to endorse a position that solely
considered this course of action as the proposal.
-rwr
"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright
Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org
> [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Paul Stahura
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 5:23 PM
> To: 'registrars@dnso.org'
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots
>
>
> I second this motion
> Paul
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elana Broitman
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 1:47 PM
> To: 'Michael D. Palage'; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots
>
>
> Mike - could you please also include the following additional
> ballot - this is meant to address the port 43/public Whois
> issue without affecting Brian's bulk whois ballot.
>
> Thanks, Elana
>
> The Registrar Constituency proposes that ICANN change the
> requirements to provide contact data via the public Whois
> database and the Port 43 Whois database, due, among other
> issues to the privacy concerns raised by European Union and
> European government authorities, consumer groups, and privacy
> advocates. The Constituency proposes that a Whois database
> with contact information continue to be available on a
> protected basis to specified legitimate interests, including,
> for example, intellectual property holders seeking to protect
> their intellectual property interests, law enforcement, and
> registrars and registries seeking to request and complete
> transfers and for other appropriate technical reasons.
> Therefore, the Constituency proposes that the GNSO Council's
> privacy task force include among its goals the amendment of
> the Whois data requirements per the above guidelines.
>
> > [] 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
> Consituency;
> > [] Abstain.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 12:07 PM
> 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
> >
> >
> >
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|