Re: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Don and all assembly members,

  Don, your quite right.  In this country, my country, TX, >;) we have
a right, and I would argue a duty, to vote.  However the GA members
are not being given that opportunity on many issues, the "Delete and WLS"
issues or most recent interest.  This is why I and I believe Patrick
put out two polls for the DNSO GA members to demonstrate their
VOTE.  I believe that given an opportunity without fear of some
sort of retribution, GA members will vote.  I believe that we
NEED a "Delete WG" in order to come up with a GA generated
and determined Position on the Delete issue.  Currently with the
recent comments of our new Chair, Thomas Rossler, it doesn't
seem that we will be given the RIGHT to vote on this and perhaps
other issues that need addressing for instance the .ORG v5.4
final report from the .ORG TF, unless it happens to be a issue
that Thomas, our newly elected chair supports....

Don Brown wrote:

> So, it appears that those who chose to vote represented the majority,
> in terms of market share. Clearly, then, Ross's statement was correct
> in that sense.
>
> However, I submit that Ross's statement was also correct with respect
> to the issue raised by Ron Wiener, about the 75 non-voting/not counted
> registrars.
>
> In this country,  TX :), we all have a right to vote, but we must get
> involved in the process by registering to vote and actually going to
> the polls. It seems to me that these 75 chose not to be involved,
> since no one has presented any facts to the contrary.
>
> Therefore, regardless of market share, Ross was correct in his
> statement.  When folks don't get involved, register and cast a ballot,
> no one counts their vote -- to do so is mere speculation.
>
> Accordingly, Ron Wiener's issue about the 75 other Registrars fails on
> its face, making it moot.
>
> On the opposite end of the spectrum, there has been no factual
> presentation of those who do favor WLS.  Besides Snap and the
> Registry, who actually favors and supports WLS?  I mean hard facts,
> not conjecture and speculation.
>
> At the very least, those opposed to WLS can be quantified.
>
> Tuesday, January 15, 2002, 4:25:52 PM, genie@ magi <genie@magi.net> wrote:
> gm> William:
> >>Perhaps you can clear up, Ron, exactly what percentage of new
> >>registrations those 75 non-participating registrars are responsible
> >>for (exclusing Verisign's own registrar, of course, whose conflict of
> >>interest is clear).
> >>
> >>The number of registrars is less important to me, and probably to
> >>most, than the number of registrations they are responsible for.
>
> gm> Using some data available
> gm> (bowrrowing David's math from
> gm> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00258.html
> gm> can anyone please help with the blanks?
>
> gm> EST
> gm> Marketshare
> gm> ------Registrar-------------------------WLS
> gm>       AW Registry (all west) mike brown opposed
> gm> 1.80% ENOM - Paul       opposed
> gm> 1.07% Tim - GoDaddy     opposed
> gm>       Ken Stubbs - CORE/NC
> gm>       Bob Connly - PSI Japan    obstain
> gm> 11.17% Elona - Register.com     opposed
> gm>       Donny Simonton - Intercosmos      opposed
> gm>       Steve - DomainBank        opposed
> gm>       Margie - Mark Monitor     obstain
> gm> 45.45% Bruce Bechwith - Verisign Registrar      n/c
> gm>       Mike Paliage
> gm>       Steinrl - Active ISP      obstain
> gm> 4.34% Bruce Tonkin - MelborneIT opposed
> gm> 5.23% Tom - Bulk Registrar      opposed
> gm> 1.51% Geoge - Dotster   opposed
> gm>       Sigfried - Joker  opposed
> gm> 8.38% Ross - Tucows     opposed
> gm> 2.66% Werner - CORE     opposed
> gm>       Tom - Slund.de    opposed
> gm>       Jason - Media Venture
> gm>       Alice's - Rick    opposed
> gm>       David W - IA Registry     opposed
> gm>       Speed Names - Nicoli      opposed
> gm>       Rob - NameScout   opposed
>
> >>
> >>If those 75 are responsible, collectively, for less than 50% of new
> >>registrations, and it wouldn't surprise me if the  percentage was
> >>VASTLY lower than that, then your points here are really
> >>insignificant, and self serving.
> >>
> gm> Cheers
> gm> Genie Livingstone
>
> gm> --
> gm> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> gm> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> gm> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> gm> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> ----
> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
> donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net         http://www.inetconcepts.net
> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
> ----
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html