RE: [registrars] WLS vote in Bucharest by Registrars

[dwascher@iaregistry.com]

To all,
I was not able to attend this past meeting but did listen in. One of the
comments that Chuck made during his presentation for WLS was that only a few
registrars participated in the add storms. I would like the task force to
work with Chuck to assemble a list of Registrars who are using the Auto pool
during this period.

After a drop we take all the names that were submitted to us and verify if
they were dropped or not. The spread of names (~100 to 150) on average for
these names is between 40 - 50 registrars. This is not a few registrars!!
The SnapNames report shows less then 100 registrars even registering names
at all.

VeriSign is still not caught up with the deletes. It has been estimated that
about 85,000 "desirable" names have not been deleted.

The way I see this, there will be one major add storm for every domain that
will expire within the next 12 months. I have been asked to be prepared to
submit about 3500 WLS's on opening day so far. If the public is concerned
about not having a chance to get an expired name during the drops, then how
are they going to have a chance to get a WLS? How is a current domain holder
going to get a defensive WLS on their own name?

Why is this being pushed so VERY HARD and we still can not get simple
registrar transfers to work. Who is setting the priorities for these things?

Thanks,
David Wascher

**-----Original Message-----
**From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
**Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
**Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 4:54 AM
**To: 'registrarsdnsoorg'; Jeffrey J Neuman
**Subject: [registrars] WLS vote in Bucharest by Registrars
**
**
**Hello All,
**
**
**> > 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.
**
**That is not correct.  A straw poll was taken of attending registrars.
**13 voted in favour of the report from the Names Council taskforce (which
**recommended that WLS not be approved)
**9 (by my notes) voted against the report of the Names Council
**1 abstention
**
**Tim Denton has previously posted the minutes of that meeting to the
**registrars list on
**26 June 2002.
**
**At the Bucharest meeting it was planned to send the document for vote via
**the registrars mailing list.  This did not happen.
**
**I understand that the Task Force recommendations are likely to go out for
**public comment before being voted on by the Names Council.
**
**The Registrars should also vote formally on this, so that the
**names council
**reps can represent the views of the constituency.
**
**On the basis of the straw poll above it seems as though 56% of
**those present
**voted in favour of WLS.  This was not a clear consensus to me, but it is a
**difficult issue.
**
**We had to vote on the names council task force report as a whole.
**I personally don't accept the WHOLE report, but accept many statements
**within it in regard to delete issues.  I commented on some of the
**statements
**at the public forum in Bucharest.  In particular I do not believe that
**approving WLS will significantly reduce competition in the domain name
**market.
**
**Whether WLS as a new service is good or bad, I will let our customers
**decide.  We have not done any market testing of this service, and
**it is not
**Melbourne IT's highest priority.
**
**Regardless of any personal view, I will represent the views of the
**constituency whatever the   majority believe.
**
**Regards,
**Bruce Tonkin
**>