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

[Jim Archer <jarcher@registrationtek.com>]

Jeff may not think there is a consensus opposing WLS.  If he is right (and 
I submit that he is wrong), than the converse is true, that there is no 
consensus supporting it.  This works both ways.

What we do have is a formal vote of strong opposition to WLS by the members 
of the DNSO.  I would say we have consensus opposing WLS in the DNSO 
because that motion was adopted 3 to 1.  We don't need complete agreement 
for consensus.  75% is adequate.

Jim



--On Wednesday, July 10, 2002 7:57 PM -0700 Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com> 
wrote:

>
> 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



*****************************
Jim Archer, CEO
Registration Technologies, Inc.
10 Crestview Drive
Greenville, RI 02828
voice: 401-949-4768
fax: 401-949-5814
jarcher@RegistrationTek.com
http://www.RegistrationTek.com