Re: [registrars] RE: Registrar Constituency Response to the VGRS WLS Proposal

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

> My apologies.  I actually wasn't intending to quote your statement,
> hence the absence of quotation marks. But my questions still stand
> because some specific data with regard to what the following quote means
> would be helpful for me in evaluating next steps in the process: "The
> overwhelming position of the RC - in fact the unanimous vote of all
> those taking a position - is to oppose the WLS."

> Let me rephrase the questions if that helps.  How many accredited
> registrars out of 172 took a position in the vote you referenced?  How
> many active registrars out of 96 took a position in the vote you
> referenced?  How many ICANN accredited registrars out of 172 supported
> the statement you sent me?  How many active registrars out of 96
> supported the statement you sent me?  How many registrars opposed the
> WLS proposal with some qualifications added?

Speaking as a member of the constituency (and apologies to all for jumping
in on something that wasn't directly addressed to me). The constituency was
simply fulfilling VGRS' request to the Registrar Constituency to provide
your firm with feedback concerning the proposal. It was not within the scope
of these endeavors to undertake to consult with the larger community of
registrars, but rather with the membership of the RC. In fulfilling your
consensus policy development obligations, you may feel it necessary to
consult non-member registrars, as I have done with the transfers issue, but
this would be your prerogative and likely, at least not explicitly, required
by the bylaws or Names Council administrative documents. The call
represented a majority of member registrars and the position paper produced
pursuant to that call was endorsed by the membership as noted in the mailing
list archives.

> I would not expect the Registrars Constituency to be able to attain
> perfect or even close to perfect participation in its processes. I fully
> understand the difficult dynamics you are working with in your
> environment, but clarification in what your quoted statement means would
> be helpful, especially considering you used the words "overwhelming" and
> "unanimous."

It may be more helpful that Rick or the drafting team clarify this rather
than me, but again, speaking as a member, the words "overwhelming" and
"unanimous" are simply descriptive of the sentiments held by those that you
invited feedback from and those members that participated in this particular
effort. It is specifically a formal document provided to VGRS on behalf of
the DNSO Registrar Constituency.

> I am not trying to be antagonistic.  When I reviewed the minutes of what
> I believe is the teleconference call in which the vote was taken, I saw
> a tremendous amount of information communicated by registrars that could
> be used to improve the WLS proposal.  But in the response you sent me,
> none of those constructive suggestions seem to be included except
> possibly comments about price.

Such is the beauty of truly transparent processes - not only do you have a
formal statement of position and preference from the Registrar Constituency,
but you also have a volume of criticism and suggestions concerning the
proposal that were produced by the constituency at a number of points during
the process as we were developing our formal position. As you likely know
from your efforts in the gTLD Registry Constituency, creating a formal
statement of position is much like creating a Hollywood film. A lot of
"footage" is "shot", but when edited into a coherent format for public
consumption, not all of it makes it into the released version. Your
advantage here is that you have complete access to the cutting room floor,
and if you choose, can create an interpretation of the film using the scenes
that we decided not to include for whatever reason. I would have to say that
this is preferable to waiting for the director's cut to come out in a few
years as a lot of other DNSO processes might otherwise require you to.

I would hope that VGRS consider the input from all of the sources available
to you - formal and otherwise - and not simply rely on the statement of the
constituency as being the final word on this matter. You have some of that
feedback already, the rest will likely require some further effort on VGRS'
behalf to obtain.

If I might offer a suggestion concerning the process of gathering further
input,  it may be worthwhile that VGRS employ a format similar to those that
you are using in the Universal Whois consultations. I have found these
sessions to be highly useful in that not only is the VGRS world-view of the
proposition presented, but each of the panelists in the consultation has the
opportunity to table their views as well. In the sessions that I have been
involved in, this has set the tone for the participants and truly made them
feel comfortable enough to provide Verisign with some very frank and useful
criticism and suggestions that may not have been otherwise presented in
other formats. Such an approach with this issue may be helpful to VGRS
should they wish to continue to pursue this proposal and widen the
consultation as per the consensus policy development processes used by the
DNSO. I am sure that you would have no shortage of panelists that would be
happy to assist you in describing the merits and drawbacks of this
proposition to other constituencies and stakeholders in both the ICANN
constituency and supporting organization structure and the larger Internet
community. In fact, please take my name as the first in your hat if you
decide to go this route.

It may also be worthwhile for VGRS to consider the Registrar Constituency
commentary (and the incidental commentary produced as a result of your
consultation with the Constituency) and table a revised proposal for
consideration by the community. This would have the effect of resetting the
clock on the consultation, but to the positive side, it may be easier to
sell a version of the WLS (or a new arrangement if you decided to go that
route) to Registrars and the rest of the affected stakeholders with the new
version having the benefit of considered feedback by the Registrar
Constituency.

I hope that this clarifies things a bit for you Chuck - also note that I, in
no way, speak for the Constituency on this matter - you may wish to consider
your dialogue with Rick to ensure that VGRS properly captures the spirit,
tenor, intent and fact of the Registrar position on this important matter.

Have a great weekend.

-rwr