[registrars] RE: [ga] WLS & and the Transfers TF (fwd)

[Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

posted by request of Jeffrey J. Neuman.

-rick

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:28:00 -0400
From: Jeffrey J. Neuman <jeff@neumanfamily.us>
To: jeff@neumanfamily.us
Cc: 'Rick Wesson' <wessorh@ar.com>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS & and the Transfers TF

To be fair, Rick, I would appreciate it if you could post this response
on the Registrars list, since I am unable to post to that list.

Thanks.

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey J. Neuman [mailto:jeff@neumanfamily.us]
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 10:19 PM
To: 'Rick Wesson'
Cc: 'Don Brown'; 'owner-ga@dnso.org'; 'DannyYounger@cs.com';
'ga@dnso.org'; 'mcade@att.com'; 'Registrars Executive Committee';
'Registrars List'
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS & and the Transfers TF

Regardless, even assuming that these matters should be considered by the
DNSO (which the gTLDs do not believe that it should be), the point I was
trying to make is that with the IPC, gTLDs, ccTLDs and at least some of
the Registrars (some of which are not in any way associated with
VeriSign) not opposed to the introduction of the WLS, I do not believe
that it can be said that there is a consensus to prevent its
introduction.


-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 9:59 PM
To: Jeffrey J. Neuman
Cc: 'Don Brown'; owner-ga@dnso.org; DannyYounger@cs.com; ga@dnso.org;
mcade@att.com; Registrars Executive Committee; Registrars List
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS & and the Transfers TF



On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Jeffrey J. Neuman wrote:

> To be fair, there were a number of other parties that spoke out in
> favor of the WLS in the public forum, not necessarily because they
> liked the service, but rather for the points that were raised by the
> gTLD Constituency.  In fact, when the transcript for the public forum
> is published (hopefully soon), you will see a strong statement of
> support for allowing the WLS to be introduced from Bruce Tonkin, a
> Names Council representative speaking on behalf of the MelbourneIT
> registrar supporting the notion of allowing the service to go forward.
> In addition, I understand that in the Registrar Constituency a vote
> was taken on whether to support the report or not and the result was
> 13 in favor of it, 10 against.

Which vote was that, one in Bucharest? If the vote was in Bucharest, not
all registrars voted or had the oppertunity to vote, nor were any
minutes
distributed to the registrars constituency concering such a WLS vote.

If you want to talk about the vote in Feb the Registrars Constituency
voted in opposition of the WLS.

spin the numbers as you wish, everyone else does.

-rick