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

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

Rob,

Byran is still active and we will work with him to make sure that only fully
paid members vote.

Please feel free to discuss whatever you want. If you have constructive
changes please submit them and I will take them under advisement and try to
incorporate constructive changes provided that any seconds to my original
motion do not object. If the Executive Committee decides not to put this
ballot forward for a vote, I will just get individual registrars that have
been voicing their support to sign the documents and submit them in an
individual capacity.

It is rather a sad statement that some people seem so intent on process
instead of substance. Do not get me wrong, process is important.  However,
arranging the deck chairs on the Titantic as it plugges into the sea is not
very productive. The reason the Executive Committee was elected was to
zealously advocate the interests of the registrars. If people believe that
we are not doing a good job they can boot us out of office this March when
our current terms end. Believe this is a thankless job that at times I would
not even wish on my worst enemy :-)

Mike



-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 11:22 AM
To: Michael D. Palage; registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Motions - Do I have a Second?


Michael,

Can you please confirm that only members in good standing have access to the
voting system.  I asked Rick when he was setting it up, and he said it was
Brian's problem.  Given that Brian is no longer that active, I suspect this
falls back into your domain.

Also, there is typically a discussion period after a motion is made and
seconded, where amendments to the motion can be proposed.  If we are going
to be more formal, please get it right.  Rushing from motion to instant vote
is inappropriate.

Rob.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 10:39 AM
To: registrars@dnso.org
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