RE: [registrars] RE: WLS

["Rob Hall" <rob@momentous.ca>]

Rick,

Thanks for the clarification.  I concur that it is best to simply add the
signatories to the current issue.

On your last point, I may no mention of the WLS in my statements.  They were
directed towards any issue we face.  It was not my intention to comment on
any straw-poll results, nor the WLS in particular.  By replying (and in my
reply, carrying the original request from Jim with my message, which was in
respect to the WLS), if I have led people to believe I was indeed commenting
on the straw poll, then I appologize.

I also assume you mean by strong opposition, you mean by number of members,
not any other methodology.

Rob.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick H Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 2:43 PM
To: Rob Hall
Cc: Registrars Mail List
Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: WLS



Rob,

you are correct, I fired a reply off to Jim in haste; thanks for pointing
this delicate issue out.

It probably is better to just submit the names of those that vote in the
affirmiative and publish a total in favor of the proposal. We do work for
consensus we can't declare any until we see how acceptable our response to
VGRS is to the constituency.

I would like to remind you that there was strong opposition to the WLS in
a straw-poll of the room in Dulles, VA.

-rick


On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Rob Hall wrote:

> Rick, am I hearing you correctly ?
>
> Suddenly, consensus equals 50% + 1 ?
>
> If so, how are you calculating and/or weighting the voting ?  Is it by
> member ?  Domains under management ?   Some other weighting ?
>
> To me, it seems foolish to try and say 50% + 1 is consensus.  We have
always
> strived towards building true consensus, and coming to positions that the
> most can live with (not just half). I am concerned that if we start down
> this road, in the future, our positions will be more about getting 50% of
> the vote as opposed to putting in the extra effort to try and gain true
> consensus.
>
> This would also imply that the RC could publish something as a "consensus
> document", when the largest 49 registrars in the world said "no" and the
> smallest 51 said "yes" (assuming there were 100 members).
>
> I know that this is something that many constituencies, and indeed ICANN,
> have wrestled with, but I would hate to see us go with 50%+1 as
representing
> "absolute consensus".
>
> I know I am pleased that even though we are strong competitors on many
> fronts, that we have always tried very hard to work together on issues of
> mutual concern.  I have seen both large and small companies, with
sometimes
> very opposite views, work together to try and find common ground and truly
> reach "consensus".  I would not want to ever see these efforts curtailed
or
> avoided, as it is what truly makes us strong.
>
> Rob.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Rick H Wesson
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 6:30 PM
> To: Jim Archer
> Cc: Elana Broitman; Registrars List
> Subject: Re: [registrars] RE: WLS
>
>
>
> Jim,
>
> If there is a majority vote for the comments on the WLS then they will be
> listed as our official consensus position.
>
> -rick
>
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Jim Archer wrote:
>
> > Rick...
> >
> > --On Wednesday, February 20, 2002 1:36 PM -0800 Rick H Wesson
> > <wessorh@ar.com> wrote:
> >
> > > We will also be voting on the next document produced by the drafting
> team
> > > and will add all those voting in the affirmative on the document as
> > > a signator.
> >
> > Will the comments be listed as the official position of the RC?
> >
> >
> > *****************************
> > Jim Archer, CEO
> > Registration Technologies, Inc.
> > 10 Crestview Drive
> > Greenville, RI 02828
> > voice: 401-949-4768
> > fax: 401-949-5814
> > jarcher@RegistrationTek.com
> > http://www.RegistrationTek.com
> >
>
>