RE: [registrars] Whois Task Force Interim Report

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>]

Ross

According to Ms. Cade, the Chair of the Whois Task Force, unless registrars
get their voice on the record there is the potential that registrars would
potential waive their contractual rights regarding consensus driven
policies.

Therefore, the ENTIRE executive committee (chair, secretariat, CTO &
treasurer) thought that it was a pretty good idea to get our concerns on the
record. Unlike your transfer's interim report in which a growing number of
registrars are opposed it, I have had no negative feedback on the factual
issues set forth in my document. In fact, I believe Ms. Cade would be able
to attest herself to the pushback from registrars during the meeting in
Shanghai.

I agree forming a task force on recommendations would be a good idea in
theory, however, time is of the essence. Particularly, considering the
proposal would potentially impose up to a $1,000 in fines on registrars per
EACH inaccurate whois record.

Correct me if I am wrong Ross, but the Executive Committee empowered you to
advocate the interests of registrars in the transfers task force. Now since
the original vote, the document has changed but there has been no subsequent
vote, but you still are advocating our interests despite a growing number of
registrars that are now opposing the current draft.

I seem to have trouble rectifying the Executive Committee's decision on
Whois and your actions in the Transfers Task Force.

However, never wanting to give the impression of being undemocratic like
other constituencies. I will prepare a ballot and send it out tomorrow. The
ballot will address both the Whois and Transfer's Task Force. I am sure this
vote will help give you guidance as well.

Mike



-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 11:15 AM
To: Michael D. Palage; registrars@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [registrars] Whois Task Force Interim Report


> During the weekly Executive Committee call it was discussed and agreed
that
> the registrar constituency would adopt the concerns voiced in my original
> submission, unless there were any objections.

I completely object.

This is completely out of scope for the mandate of the Executive Committee.
If the constituency is going to adopt public positions it should be done by
the constituency and not by a negative option fiat handed down by the
ExecComm.

Further, the comments that in the paper you reference are neither useful nor
instructive for the task force. While the *concerns* in most cases are valid
to varying degrees, they do not provide the task force with substantive
alternatives that they can consider. If they are not provided with
substantive alternatives and suggestions, it is likely that they will just
dig in their heels around the current recommendations.

I do however support the idea that the constituency needs to develop a
position on these recommendations and provide the task force with
substantive input and recommendations. I propose that a drafting team could
be put together to develop a doc which could be forwarded to the
constituency for a vote of the membership.

At the very least, Michael's document should be put to a vote prior to
adoption.

                       -rwr




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

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>
To: <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 1:03 PM
Subject: [registrars] Whois Task Force Interim Report


> Hello All:
>
> Last week I posted to the registrar constituency mailing list some of my
> private concerns regarding the Whois Task Force interim report. In
Shanghai
> a number of registrars expressed concern over the interim report, however,
> as of today not one registrar has posted any public comments on record to
> the DNSO website
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/maillist.html.
I
> would encourage registrars to submit their comments via email to
> comments-whois@dnso.org.
>
> During the weekly Executive Committee call it was discussed and agreed
that
> the registrar constituency would adopt the concerns voiced in my original
> submission, unless there were any objections. A copy of my original
> submission can be found online at
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/msg00012.html.
> The final date for submission is Nov 8th.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mike
>