RE: [registrars] RE: WLS

[Elana Broitman <ebroitman@register.com>]

these are tricky questions, but as long as the constituency assigns fees and
votes according to accreditation or company ownership rather than size,
evaluation of concensus should be based on #votes, not registrations.
However, it is fair for any registrar or set of registrars to forward a
minority view that represents them as they see fit (i.e., % of market).

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Archer [mailto:jarcher@registrationtek.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 3:20 PM
To: Beckwith, Bruce
Cc: Registrars Mail List
Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: WLS


Hi Bruce...

Let me explain my reasoning.

--On Thursday, February 21, 2002 2:51 PM -0500 "Beckwith, Bruce" 
<bbeckwith@verisign.com> wrote:

> In a group of 45 or so registrars (approximate number of dues paying
> members of the Registrar Constituency), some with as few as 6 CNO
> registrations as of December 31, 2001 (SnapNames State of the Domain -
> Year-End 2001), if 23 RC member registrars vote a particular way, even if
> their volume only amounts to 12% of all gTLD registrations, that this
> becomes the consensus of the Registrar Constituency?  Would you define
> this as consensus, in the spirit of ICANN's definition of consensus?

First, we are seeking a "consencus" of the actual members of the RC.  We 
have no mechanism for soliciting and evaluating the positions of those 
registrars who are not members of the RC, nor should we try to do so.  The 
members of the RC, by virtue of their membership, have the right to 
contribute to the policy making decisions of the RC.  Non-members lack this 
right.  As the membership is open to any accredited registrar, this is 
entirely fair and reasonable.  On this point, I don't think we have a 
disagreement.

As to the number of registrations sponsored by each member of the RC, I 
don't see the relevance.  The consensus being sought is not among 
registrants and even if it was, there is no reason a registrar should be 
allowed expected to speak for a registrant.  The consensus is among 
registrars.  That means that each registrar has an equal say in generation 
of the consensus.

So yes, I feel that each member registrar should have an equal say in the 
determination of this consensus.

Also, I think that the complex procedure of issuing comments and having 
everyone agree on them is probably not the best route to consensus.  The 
more details, the harder it is to get a consensus.  I thing that we should 
draft a resolution simply opposing WLS as presented and adopt it as RC 
position by majority vote.

Jim



>
> Regards,
>
> Bruce
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	Jim Archer [mailto:jarcher@registrationtek.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, February 21, 2002 2:14 PM
> To:	Rob Hall; Registrars Mail List
> Subject:	RE: [registrars] RE: WLS
>
> Hi Rob...
>
> It is fairly normal for a voting body to adopt policy based upon a
> majority  vote.  In this case, as demonstrated in Virginia last weekend,
> a very large  majority of registrars are opposed to the implementation of
> WLS, as least  as currently proposed.
>
> Jim
>
> --On Thursday, February 21, 2002 1:56 PM -0500 Rob Hall
> <rob@momentous.ca>  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?
>
>
>
> ************************************
> James W. Archer
> Registration Technologies, Inc.
> 10 Crestview Drive
> Greenville, RI 02828
> 401-949-4768 (voice)
> 401-949-5814 (fax)
> jarcher@RegistrationTek.com



************************************
James W. Archer
Registration Technologies, Inc.
10 Crestview Drive
Greenville, RI 02828
401-949-4768 (voice)
401-949-5814 (fax)
jarcher@RegistrationTek.com