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

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

Ron,

I haven't yet had a time to digest the entire PDF, so these comments are
limited to a specific portion of the document. Further comments on the rest
of the document later.

You have completely mischaracterized the Registrar teleconference from last
week.

First, this was a constituency conference call, not an accredited registrar
conference call. The difference between these two groups is slight but
different. Every accredited registrar is not necessarily a member of the
DNSO, nor the registrar constituency. The DNSO process only accounts for
those that have self-selected to participate in the process. As such, the
constituency can only speak for those that wish to participate. Your comment
that the call represented only a handful of interests is therefore
inaccurate. In fact, the call represented a majority of member registrars.

Second, the question under discussion was whether or not the proposals under
discussion merited endorsement by the constituency or not. This was in
response to Chuck Gomes request that registrars provide their comments to
VGRS by the 18th of this month. It is difficult for a constituency to
determine whether or not support should be given for a particular proposal
if the membership has not been consulted. Note that it was not the purpose
of this call to counter-propose, redefine or otherwise negotiate the
proposals on the table. VGRS has indicated on a number of occasions that
they view this as counter-productive and are only interested in feedback on
this particular proposal. While this particular VGRS request was curious,
and somewhat disappointing, the constituency attempted to fulfill it as
requested.

Third, you indicate that only six opposed the WLS proposal, in fact, the
number was actually 17. Further, the notes from the call indicate
explicitly, that only one registrar would be offering the service regardless
of the outcome but that they did not support the proposal as currently
written.

Fourth, you state that a handful of registrars have appointed themselves to
a drafting committee to come up with an alternate proposal, thus recreating
the process that had started six months ago. Two comments here. First, the
"handful of registrars" were appointed by the constituency to draft a
response to the VGRS proposal as Chuck Gomes requested. Responses such as
the one that VGRS has requested do not magically appear overnight as if left
by the tooth fairy. It is common constituency process to strike groups such
as this in order that the constituency has a clear and concise statement of
position on various issues. Second, the mandate of this group is first and
foremost, to draft a response, as requested, to Verisign concerning the WLS.

Based on this, you then attempt to draw a straight line between the obvious
consensus of the constituency and the self-interest of registrars catering
to speculators. You try to do so based on the outstanding comments of the
registrars that have never participated in the DNSO process and the
self-interests of registrars at the table. I believe that I have
sufficiently illustrated the fallacy of the first statement. To the second
point I can only say that *every* participant in the DNSO process is
self-interested. This is why the constituency structure is so important - it
serves to balance the inherent self-interest in the overall structure. Even
if we buy this argument that a few self-interested registrars are somehow
determining the constituency consensus, please note that 4 out of the top
five registrars (who constitute an even smaller percentage than the 10% that
you point to in your dissertation) unanimously do not support this proposal.
The fifth, far from being supportive of the proposition at this point, has
reserved comment until they have finished their analysis. These registrars
represent in excess of 90% of all domain names registered.

In another portion, you plead with the community to react on your behalf
lest us registrars hijack the decision making process. If you were serious
about this, you would open up the "decision making process" to include other
impacted stakeholders (as opposed to explicitly and solely inviting
registrar feedback) and allowing the consensus policy process to take its
natural course. You hold these words up, yet you seem to fail to understand
them.

Finally, you hold up your arguments as a defense of the common man from evil
speculative interests while claiming that the registrars are clearly in a
conflict of interest in representing their own interests. How do you justify
the implicit paradox that this represents?

I am deeply disappointed with this obvious attempt to distract the
participants in this discussion from what the real issues are. I am more
disappointed by your attempts to demonize your direct customers. You expect
us to both buy your arguments and your products - which would be a pleasure
if you didn't appear intent on destroying the character of registrars as a
group.

I do have one question for VGRS and SnapNames however based on a couple of
statements made by Chuck last October concerning

"ICANN would certainly need to be involved if any changes were required to
existing agreements or existing policy."

and

"In response to Ross' question about where we go from here, I stated that I
am still willing to work with ICANN with regard to policy issues and within
VGRS to develop estimated time frames for the possible implementation of the
[WLS] proposal."

When do you expect that this will finally happen? My preference is that it
occur before you arbitrarily launch the service without appropriately
consulting the community. Perhaps this is a self-interested minority view as
well however, so I might be off-base wth this one.

-rwr

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Wiener" <Ron@Snapnames.com>
To: <ga@dnso.org>; <icann-delete@total.confusion.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 11:23 AM
Subject: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few


> Rather than respond to individual response documents and e-mail posts,
> please find attached a concise document, in PDF format.
>
> Cheers,
> Ron
>