RE: [registrars] WLS - VOTING - Objection

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

> 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.

I couldn't agree more. In fact, as I indicated in the message that I
just sent to this list, this is now how the TF is being asked to
consider the issue - and I have less than one hour to come up with some
good answers - wish me luck ;)


                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org 
> [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Robert F. Connelly
> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 12:57 PM
> To: 'Registrar Constituency'
> Subject: RE: [registrars] WLS - VOTING - Objection
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>