Re: [registrars] PERSONAL APPEAL !

[Jim Archer <jarcher@registrationtek.com>]

We oppose WLS in any form we have seen discussed.  We will not take a 
position on the recomendations except to say that we oppose even providing 
feedback on how such a service should work.  We oppose it, period.

What makes anyone thing that Verisign will implment it in such a way we 
recomend?  They submitted a specific proposal and we should respond to that 
and only that.

Oppose it.


--On Monday, July 22, 2002 3:03 PM -0400 Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@digitel.net> 
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