Re: [registrars] WLS - VOTING - Objection

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

I hate to be a stick in the mud, but the ballot does not provide the
granularity that I (and therefore presumably our reps) require in order to
cast an informed vote on Tuesday and Wednesday, nor will it provide for
sufficient insight for us to modify our positions appropriately as the
document goes through final discussion (and possible modification). It is
extremely rare that a proposition goes through two rounds of discussion and
vote and without breaking out the ballot as I requested earlier this week,
both I and presumably our NC reps will be at a severe disadvantage in
dealing with the meetings over the next three days.

To put it another way, I have received no input from the TF on the
recommendations since requesting it a week ago. A binary vote on the two
recommendations of the TF will not provide me with much further information
(beyond yea or nay). This will force me into a position where I will have to
guess, vote my "conscience" or abstain should revisions or amendents come
into the discussion. The alternative, casting a vote on each of the
individual recommendations, puts me into a position where I have specific
knowledge of the wishes of the constituency and might be able to assist in
moving the final, final recommendations towards something that more
appropriately suits our interests.

I strongly request that the form of this ballot is reconsidered and modified
to more closely reflect the proposal I put forth earlier last week. (see
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02679.html for complete
details)

Thanks,

-rwr
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>
To: <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 9:34 PM
Subject: [registrars] WLS - VOTING


> We have a problem. On July 24th, this Wednesday, the Names Council is
going
> to have a vote on the Names Council Task Force Report on the WLS, and we
> have two issues before us. The first is whether the constituency
> supports/opposes the Names Council Task Force report on WLS. The second,
is
> how should our Names Council representatives vote. The second is the more
> complex as it directly goes toward a by-law interpretation/amendment.
>
> Unfortunately, there has been a de minimis amount of discussion on this
> topic, I believe two posts by Jim Archer and Rob Hall. The by-laws require
> that we have a minimum seven day voting period were feasible, because of
the
> Wednesday deadline it would be deemed appropriate to waive the seven day
> rule with regard to the WLS proposal. However, I have serious concerns
about
> amending the constituency by-laws on a 24 hour vote.
>
> Further complicating matters is that the neutral third party that we
usually
> use to administer our Votebot has been on vacation. Therefore, it looks
like
> we will have to do it the old fashion way with designated voting
> representatives casting their vote to the list. Unless anyone else has an
> idea?
>
> Therefore I would propose that the following ballot be used, as opposed to
> Jim Archer's original motion that would alter/interpret the by-laws. If
> there are any objections to this ballot please post it to the list ASAP.
If
> there are any objections, the Registrar Executive Committee will agree
upon
> a final ballot tomorrow afternoon during our weekly call (Monday 5PM EDT).
> However, if there are no objections please cast your ballot to the list.
The
> Executive Committee will count the ballots and verify that only paid
> designated voting members are voting and post the results to the list
> Tuesday evening prior to the Wednesday morning call. In accordance with
> standard practice the Registrar Names Council Representatives will use
their
> best judgment to reflect the position of the Constituency.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael D. Palage
>
>
>
> PROPOSED BALLOT:
>
> With regard to the Names Council Task Force report on the WLS,
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020714.TFtransfer-WLS-report.html, and
the
> "Preferred Recommendations" That (1) The ICANN board move with all haste
to
> implement and actively enforce the proposed Redemptions Grace Period for
> Deleted Names policy and practice; and (2) The ICANN Board reject
Verisign's
> request to amend its agreement to enable it to introduce its proposed WLS;
> and (3) The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to trial the WLS for 12
> months.
>
> [ ] I oppose it
> [ ] I support it
>
>
> With regard to the Names Council Task Force report on the WLS,
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020714.TFtransfer-WLS-report.html, and
the
> "Alternative Recommendations" regarding pricing, notification,
accessibility
> of whois information, etc. (see Alternate Recommendations for all 6
> recommendations).
>
> [ ] I oppose it
> [ ] I support it
>