RE: [registrars] WLS vote in Bucharest by Registrars

[Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

Rob,

The point is that, "there has only been on formal vote taken by the
RC on the WLS"

Are you requesting the RC to re-evaluate that vote?

-rick

On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Rob Hall wrote:

> Jim,
>
> OK .. now I am confused.  You say the DNSO had a formal vote on WLS.  Do you
> mean the Registrar Constituency, or the GA of the DNSO ?
>
> I assume you mean the RC and the vote that took place on the position paper
> in early March.
>
> Given that the WLS has changed and morphed quite a bit since then, do you
> not think it is a good idea to evaluate what it is today, rather than back
> in Feb ?  I know that I am impressed that the Registry seems to be
> addressing some of our concerns, and their position now is much better (in
> my opinion) than it was back in Feb.
>
> I also believe that they have addressed some of the concerns raised by the
> committee.  ROSS: Perhaps you can fill us in here.  Have VGRS's recent
> changes addressed any of the points the committee made in their preliminary
> report ? Do you know when the final report will be published by the
> committee ?
>
> I know that I want to keep an open mind, and look at new proposals and
> evaluate them on their merits, as opposed to singing the same old tune out
> of habit.  Do you have any comments on the new proposal ?
>
>
> Rob.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Jim Archer
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 3:38 PM
> To: Bruce Tonkin
> Cc: 'registrars@dnso.org'; Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Subject: Re: [registrars] WLS vote in Bucharest by Registrars
>
>
> Bruce, the DNSO did have a formal vote on WLS.  In a written motion that
> was circulated to all members and voted using the votebot Rick maintains,
> the resolution strongly opposing WLS was adopted by a 3 to 1 margin.  In
> other words, approximately 75% of DNSO members voting voted in favor of
> this resolution, which strongly opposed WLS.
>
> The DNSO has voiced its strong opposition to WLS formally on a motion that
> was presented to the entire membership, given time for debate, and voted.
> The "straw poll" taken at the meeting in VA predates this formal motion,
> which still stands as the DNSO's official position on WLS.
>
> Jim
>
> --On Thursday, July 11, 2002 6:54 PM +1000 Bruce Tonkin
> <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >>
>
>
>
> *****************************
> 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
>
>