RE: [registrars] PERSONAL APPEAL !

["Patricio Valdes" <valdes@parava.net>]

Our 2 cents worth.....

We have not paid our dues this year, so if it counts or taken into
consideration here's our view, we directly OPPOSE the implementation of the
WLS. Again we are AGAINST the WLS:

> 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
> [x] 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).
> [x] I oppose it
> [ ] I support it


Patricio Valdes
Parava Networks

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Rick Wesson
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 2:22 PM
To: Ken Stubbs
Cc: 'Registrar Constituency'
Subject: Re: [registrars] PERSONAL APPEAL !



Ken,

your post outlines the exact reason execs attempted to gaguge the RC
consensus and draw that up as a recomendtation of the NC.

I suggest you give it a read.

-rick

On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Ken Stubbs wrote:

> FELLOW REGISTRARS...
>
> right now i (and the other names council reps) are in need of  "MORE
> SPECIFIC INPUT"  from the constituancy... specifically a response to
michael
> palages voting proposals
>
> WE NEED YES AND NO'S ... (not more discussion at this time.)
>
> we have well over 50 members of the constituancy and yet, to date i have
> postings here from less than 10 members..
>
> at this point in time, the issues are becoming so clouded by some of these
> "recent posts-to-date"  that, frankly,  i would be inclined to abstain as
i
> am having trouble finding an concensus fro the constituancy on the TF
> proposal i & the other names council reps have to vote on this
wednesday...
>
>  there have been significant changes and addendums made over the last 4
> months but VERY LITTLE RESPONSE OR REACTION  from the overwhelming
majority
> of the registrars..
>
> if those registrars who were not present &  voted in bucharest (or
> subsequently , expressed their opinions "post bucharest")   aren't
> interested in "going on the record" or letting your constituancy reps know
> your position, then you put us in a tenous position..
>
> those of you whom i am addressing in this post...........
>
> cant you please take  5 minutes & send a short e-mail to bruce, philip
> grabensee, or myself and let us know what your current "position" is on
> these proposals ?
>
> 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
>
>
> please help us out here ...
>
> ken stubbs
>