RE: [registrars] RE: WLS

["Beckwith, Bruce" <bbeckwith@verisign.com>]

Tim,

What I am trying to point out is that if we, members of the Registrar
Constituency, determine policies or actions based on a minority of the
market volume, then we should identify the position accurately - as I
suggested at the Dulles meeting - by noting specifically those that support
a particular position, and making an allowance for the minority position
(using the one registrar-one vote method) - which ironically, could actually
represent the majority of the registration volume.

Though I purposely chose an extreme example, it points out the problems in
defining consensus as 50% + 1 - which could have the effect of not allowing
new products or services to be made available for ALL of our customers, and
stymieing creativity in our industry.  Though the current discussion
revolves around WLS, my concern is that we become short-sighted in our
methods, and find that we, the Registrar Constituency, make decisions that
may be convenient for some registrars, yet have tremendous impacts for other
registrar customers.

Lastly, I will reiterate a position that Network Solutions espoused, and now
as VeriSign, we still believe.  Let the market decide!  If a product or
service becomes available, then it should be the option of registrars and/or
others to provide it to their customers.  If the product or service is
successful, so be it.  If the product is not successful, it will be pulled
from the market.  As long as everyone has the option to resell the product
or service, then the decision can be left to individual business decisions.

Regards,

Bruce

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] 
Sent:	Thursday, February 21, 2002 4:12 PM
To:	Beckwith, Bruce; 'Jim Archer'
Cc:	Registrars Mail List
Subject:	RE: [registrars] RE: WLS

Bruce,

You're not suggesting that member-registrars' votes should weighted by CNO
market share, are you?

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Beckwith, Bruce
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 1:52 PM
To: 'Jim Archer'
Cc: Registrars Mail List
Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: WLS


Jim,

With all due respect, please consider what I believe you are stating:

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?

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