RE: [registrars] FW: Important: Vote on Taskforce report on WLS -draft response

["Rob Hall" <rob@momentous.ca>]

Did I just read this right ?

The executive committee has decided and instructed our names council
representatives which way to vote ?

And right in the middle of the entire constituency holding a vote to
determine where it stands ?

I am glad the current voting is being done in public, so that our NC reps
can clearly see the will of the constituency, and act accordingly, as
opposed to the exec committee deciding for us.

I would hope the NC reps take an attitude towards this like Ross has on the
taskforce.  Namely, to listen to the members of the constituency and act
accordingly.

Rob.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Timothy Denton
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 11:42 AM
To: Registrars-ICANN
Subject: [registrars] FW: Important: Vote on Taskforce report on WLS
-draft response


This is a self-explanatory letter communicating the views of the Executive
Committee, absent Maichael Palage, who has recused himself, to our three
members of the Names Council, who will have to debate and discuss the WLS
issue this week.

-----Original Message-----
From: Timothy Denton [mailto:tim@tmdenton.com]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 11:22 AM
To: Bruce Tonkin; Phillipp Grabensee; Ken Stubbs
Cc: Michael D. Palage; Timothy Denton; Rick H Wesson; Bryan Evans
Subject: Important: Vote on Taskforce report on WLS -draft response


Bruce, Ken and Phillipp

The purpose of this note is to lay out for you and for the executive
committee a proposed response to Bruce Tonkin's letter to Rick Wesson, CTO
of the constituency, on Wednesday July 17, which sought the advice and
direction of the Registrars' Executive Committee regarding how the NC reps
of the registrars should vote at the next meeting of the Names Council
regarding the WLS proposal. In particular I am referring to the advice of
the Task Force as it was drafted (see below for the text).

On Friday July 20, Rick Wesson, Bryan Evans and I discussed this request for
direction from you. As you are aware, Mike Palage has recused himself from
this issue because of a contractual relationship to SnapNames, and we
thought that, though Mike would be welcome to discuss the mechanics of the
vote, the issue also concerned on what issues and recommendations of the
Task Force the constituency would be asked to vote, and how that vote should
go.

Our choices were very clear. In the time available before the next meeting
of the Names Council, the registrars would have far less than the one week
to discuss and the one week to vote that our bylaws provide for. Our manager
of electronic voting, Dan Busarow, is away on vacation and unavailable in
the elevant time period. We concluded that it would not be possible to poll
the membership again on this issue in time to give you a response.

Our next choice was whether we as an executive could advise you as to how to
vote in the absence of an explicit vote of constiuency members on the
recommendations of the Task Force, as they are presented below in this
email. We decided not to duck the issue. We three considereed, that although
opinion in the registrars' constituency remains divided, that by previous
votes and informal polls at conferences, the most recent of which was taken
in Bucharest at the most recent ICANN meeting, that a preponderance of about
two-thirds of the registrars had opposed the WLS proposals.(see minutes of
Bucharest meeting at http://www.icann-registrars.org/ )

Recommendations of the Executive Committee (absent the President)

Accordingly, we decided that it was the better course to advise you along
the lines of the recommendation of the Task Force report itself. That is to
say:

1) It would be preferable for our reps to vote according to the first set of
recommendations A through C of the Task Force report, and that, if they find
themselves unable or unwilling to do so, then they should vote in favour of
recommendations A through F of the Task Force report.

2) It may be that you three will be required to vote on indidivual
amendments or additions to the SECOND set of protections proposed in
paragraphs A through F of the Task Force report. In that case you will be
required to use your discretion. It is not possible in this letter to lay
out all the contingencies you might face. Nevetheless, the Executive wants
its NC reps to act in such a way that the concerns of the majority of
registrars be satisfied, namely to protect them to the greatest extent
possible against the anti-competitive possibilities of the WLS.

Our reasoning was that a preponderance of the registrars have consistently
opposed the WLS proposals, and that the Task Force report gives a reasoned
statement of policy that the executive committee should not interfere with,
absent compelling reasons.


Proxies

It is vital that all of our NC reps give proxies so that a valid meeting of
the Names Council can be held. The constituency will be watching our
representatives to ensure that they are participating in this important
issue.



Timothy Denton, BA,BCL
Secretary, ICANN-Registrars Constituency
37 Heney Street
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada K1N 5V6
www.tmdenton.com
1-613-789-5397 Ottawa
1-819-842-2238 North Hatley
tmdenton@magma.ca





-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 5:56 AM
To: 'Rick Wesson'
Cc: Registrars Executive Committee; 'Ken Stubbs'
Subject: Vote on Taskforce report on WLS


Hello Rick,

I would like to get a formal vote on the Taskforce report on WLS for the
registrars constituency.

Would you be able to run a vote-bot for this vote?

It is a controversial topic, and at the current rate I expect that Ken
Stubbs, Philip Grabensee and myself would probably have to abstain on voting
on the namescouncil next week
unless we have a clear direction from the constituency on the taskforce
report.

I see that we should be voting on the recommendations of the taskforce
report:

Recommendation to deny the WLS:

A. The ICANN board move with all haste to implement and actively enforce the
proposed Redemptions Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice

B. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to amend its agreement to
enable it to introduce its proposed WLS.

C. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to trial the WLS for 12 months.


The TF takes into account that the ICANN Board may not accept the policy
recommendations noted above for a variety of reasons.

Therefore, an alternative recommendation, with conditions, is provided.

Should the ICANN board not accept the policy recommendations noted above and
grant Verisign's request for a change to its agreement and a 12 month trial
of its WLS, we would alternatively recommend that WLS be approved with
conditions:

A. The introduction of WLS is dependent on the implementation and proven
(for not less than three months) practice envisaged in the proposed
Redemption Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice and the
establishment of a standard deletion period.

B. Verisign has proposed an interim Grace Period. The TF recommends that any
interim Grace Period have all the characteristics and conditions of the
Redemption Grace Period now in implementation.

C. Several Constituencies remain concerned that a standard deletion period
be established and implemented. Some TF members believe that this could be
considered separately from WLS.

D. The WLS include a requirement that notice be provided by the Registry
(through the registrar) to the existing registrant of a domain name when a
WLS option is taken out against that registrant's domain name.

E. The WLS include a requirement for full transparency as to who has placed
a WLS option on a domain name and the registrar that actions the option.

F. Based on the above two points (notice and transparency), the price for
the WLS be set at the same amount as the current registry fee for a
registration - the cost of the WLS function being no more, an probably less,
than a registration - plus any additional costs to "notice and
transparency', based on Verisign's provision of such validating information
on such costs to the Board/Staff.

Regards,
Bruce