RE: [registrars] WLS - VOTING - Objection

["Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>]

At 11:16 AM 7/22/02 -0400, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> > The witness will answer "Yes" or "No" -- with ruffles and
> > flourishes is he
> > so desires.  Regards, BobC
>
>;) Not at all Bob. Apologies if that was the impression I was giving. In
>order to ensure that I can appropriately represent the constituency
>during these final hours of discussion, re-drafting and negotiation, I
>need to get a clear sense of what individual members feel about the
>specific recommendations made in the report.

Dear Ross:  After seeing Nicolaj's comment, I realized that I'd been a bit 
flippant about it.

Especially so with respect to the following, to which Nicolaj referred:

  b) As Michael
     (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02713.html),
     we don't support that "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." (Section II, D).

Inasmuch as we serve several major Trademark owners, we, too, object to 
this clause.  Their needs should be facilitated. Said needs include back 
ordering a name held by a cybersquatter without having the RegistraR or 
RegistrY blowing their cover.

It seems to me that cases of this type require a long time for preparation 
of the ballot and for voters to be given a "menu" of provisions to vote on 
one at a time.  *That* would give our NC members the kind of counsel they 
need in order to present our issues in a balanced manner.

Cordially, BobC