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

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> There were other options for a solution to the Transfers issue floated at
> the Shanghai meeting. The RC should have an opportunity to review and
> discuss those options within a reasonable time period. At the least,
Motion
> 3 should be amended to allow for that option.

Tim - Completely agree. There were tons of options and concerns raised at
the meeting which will be enumerated pending the teleconference to ensure
that I've captured everything - ideally the combination of the call and the
face to face meeting will have provided us with with sufficient clarity as
to what the actual substantive issues are.

At this point, I'm really interested in two things - a) making sure that the
final work product is comprehensive and reflective of the constituencies
interests and b) making sure that we are moving in the right direction (from
the perspective of the membership) with the current efforts. The rest is
noise.


                       -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: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>
To: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>; <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 12:07 PM
Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Motions - Do I have a Second?


> Michael,
>
> After further consideration and advice I'd like amend my second to include
> only Motions 1, 2, and 4.
>
> There were other options for a solution to the Transfers issue floated at
> the Shanghai meeting. The RC should have an opportunity to review and
> discuss those options within a reasonable time period. At the least,
Motion
> 3 should be amended to allow for that option.
>
> Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 10:27 AM
> To: Michael D. Palage; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Motions - Do I have a Second?
>
>
> I second all four Motions.
>
> Tim Ruiz
> Go Daddy Software, Inc.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 9:39 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>