Re: [registrars] RE: WLS

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

Once a constituency position has been established, the constituency does
not, nor should we, have an obligation to represent the minority view in any
way.

If the minority view wishes to be heard, the larger ICANN consensus process
makes sufficient allowance for these views to be properly weighed and heard.

It is difficult enough for us to agree on what we agree with. It would be
impossible for us to appropriately represent what we disagree about.

-rwr

----- Original Message -----
From: "Beckwith, Bruce" <bbeckwith@verisign.com>
To: <tim@godaddy.com>
Cc: "Registrars Mail List" <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 4:47 PM
Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: WLS


> 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