Re: [registrars] Proposed Motions - Do I have a Second?

[Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@digitel.net>]

seconded


----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>
To: <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 10:38 AM
Subject: [registrars] Proposed Motions - Do I have a Second?


> MOTION #1:
>
> Whereas, the entire Executive Committee on Monday decided that given the
> short amount of time prior to the close of public comments on the Whois
Task
> Force Interim Report it was important to get a constituency viewpoint on
the
> record. It was proposed that the original comments submitted by Michael
> Palage be adopted as the constituency viewpoint, pending any substantive
> objections from the constituency. Given concerns by certain members
> regarding the documented support within the registrars constituency for
both
> the Whois and Transfer's Task Force interim report, it was discussed that
> there may be a need for a formal vote by the Registrar Constituency on
both
> interim reports. Although the formal close of public comments is Nov 8th,
> according to the DNSO Secretariat the final reports will not be voted upon
> until the Dec 14th Names Council meeting.
>
> Therefore it is proposed that a formal vote be taken on both the Whois and
> Transfer Interim Reports using the new administrative software. The voting
> would begin as soon as there is a second to this motion and the ballot can
> be uploaded and would continue for an expedited 5 day voting period.
>
> MOTION #2:
>
> Whereas, the proposed recommendations contained in the Whois Interim
Report
> have a potential significant impact on registrars and registrants. It is
> important for the registrar constituency to highlight certain problems of
> the Task Force interim report on the record.
>
> Therefore, it is proposed that the following ballot be submitted to the
> registrars constituency for a vote.
>
> BALLOT:
>
> Because of the potential negative impact that the proposed Whois Task
Force
> interim report will have on registrars and registrants as set forth in the
> following document
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg03532.html, the
> undersigned registrar supports the comments contained in this document in
an
> effort to work with the broader Internet community and resolve the
> complexity of issues surrounding the accuracy and access of Whois records.
>
> [ ] supports this statement and supporting documentation
> [ ] opposed this statement and supporting documentation
> [ ] abstain
>
> MOTION #3:
>
> Whereas, intra-registrar transfers is one of the core principles upon
which
> domain name portability is based, the registrar constituency has a vested
> interest in empowering registrants with the authority to knowingly and
> timely transfer a domain between registrars without undue or unnecessary
> restraints, while simultaneously protecting registrants from having their
> domain name transferred without their informed consent. The efforts of the
> registrar constituency have been well documented over the past two years,
> and the Registrar constituency representative has been a vocal advocate in
> the Names Council Transfers Task Force which has recently release an
interim
> report.
>
> Therefore it is proposed that the following ballot be submitted to the
> registrars constituency for a vote.
>
> BALLOT:
>
> In an effort to increase consumer choice in selecting and retaining a
domain
> name registrar of their choice the under signed registrar: (multiple
> selections are possible)
>
> [ ] supports the proposed Transfer's Task Force Interim Report
> [ ] supports the basic principles of Transfer's Task Force Interim Report,
> but cannot support the interim report at this time until certain issues
are
> adequately addressed including but not limited to the most recent TUCOWS
> proposal.
> [ ] reject the Transfer's Task Force Interim Report
> [ ]  abstain
>
>
> MOTION #4
>
> Whereas, during the course of the transfers discussion there has emerged
> differing viewpoints among a growing number of registrars. Specifically,
> during the Stockholm meeting there was 22 to 3 vote in favor of an
auto-ack
> policy. Recently there were 8 members of the constituency that endorsed a
> letter raising significant concerns about the current Transfers document.
> During the Dulles meeting this past February, the Executive Committee
> selected and the constituency endorsed Ross Rader as the sole
representative
> to the Transfers Task Force, despite the option of having two
> representatives on this task force.
>
> Therefore it is proposed that the following ballot be submitted to the
> registrars constituency for a vote.
>
> BALLOT:
>
> In an effort to have the concerns of a growing number of registrars
> adequately represented on the Transfers Task Force, a second Registrar
> representative selected from this group to should serve on the Transfer's
> Task Force during the last month of debate prior to a final recommendation
> being made by the Names Council on December 14,2002. Because the Registrar
> Constituency only has one vote on the Task Force, this vote should only be
> cast upon the mutual agreement of both representatives. In the case that
> both representatives cannot agree on a common position, the dispute should
> be submitted to the constituency for a vote.
>
> [ ] Agree
> [ ] Disagree
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>