RE: [registrars] RE: WLS

[Paul Stahura <stahura@enom.com>]

Bruce,

I beleive that the vote should not be based on
how many registrations "the minority" currently manages.
One reason this is not relevent data (IMO) is because
registrar competition has not had long enough time
to give an accurate steady-state picture (based on the number of
registrations
under management) of who the market is
favoring today, not who they favored when there
was a registrar monopoly.   If you want an accurate and timely picture
of which group of registrars the market is currently 
favoring, then, if anything, you should look at net new registrations
statistics.
I would guess if you used that measure (letting the current market decide), 
then Verisign registrar would have a negative vote, since Verisign registar
has
consistantly had a negative net gain in registrations.

Maybe the vote should be annotated as follows:

Vote (for/against WLS)
followed by:
Company Name
Number of registrations under management
Net gain/loss in registrations for the most recent month or two.

But no extra weight should be given to any member but by a straight vote
in determining consensus.

Another reason to not take the number of registrations
under management into account is that if we were to do that,
the largest registrars (and this would take only a small number
such as 1, 2 or 3 registars) could get together and generally dictate
policy to the rest.

I beleive implementation of WLS will advantage the larger registrars
more so than the current system,
therefore, giving the large registrars more weight in deciding 
for/against WLS is wrong.

Lastly, regarding letting the market decide...
I am all for letting the market decide, but in this case (WLS),
the product offered is a monopoly product.  The registry offering
this product pre-empts eNom's current offering of its competing
("club drop") product.  And also pre-empts any other registar from
offering a competing product. Therefore, the market won't have an
oportunity to decide (as they can today) between the two (or more,
since others besides eNom offer other WLS competing products today).

Product choice means choosing from amongst a number of competing products,
product choice does not mean deciding to sell or not to sell one product
as you seem to think.

Regards, 

Paul



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Beckwith, Bruce [mailto:bbeckwith@verisign.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 1:47 PM
> To: 'tim@godaddy.com'
> Cc: Registrars Mail List
> 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
>