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

["Tom D'Alleva" <tdalleva@bulkregister.com>]

Elan's Motion #3 cover all the bases.  Most importantly it provides some
additional time for discussion on the transfer issues. I second it.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Elana Broitman
> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 1:10 PM
> To: ross@tucows.com; tim@godaddy.com; Michael D. Palage;
> registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Motions - Do I have a Second?
>
>
> Ross - thanks for that call!  So, given all the traffic regarding
> motion 3,
> in particular, let me propose the following revision:
>
> MOTION #3:
>
> Whereas, intra-registrar transfers is a core principle for registrars'
> support to registrants' domain name needs, the registrar constituency
> commends the Transfers Task Force with its diligent efforts to arrive at a
> concensus solution to propose to the Names Council.  The registrar
> constituency has a vested interest in a transfer policy that empowers
> registrants with the authority to knowingly and timely transfer a domain
> name to a new registrar while protecting registrants from mistakes or
> unscrupulous practices that endanger their names.  There has been a split
> among registrars as to the right approach, with as recently as October, a
> group of registrars opposing the Task Force interim conclusions.
> The efforts
> of the registrar constituency to reach a balanced approach have
> recently had
> a step forward with several new approaches proposed at the two most recent
> constituency meetings - namely the VeriSign registry's proposition in
> Amsterdam and the TuCows proposal in Shanghai.  In order to take this
> opportunity to arrive at a concensus, the registrar constituency instructs
> its representative to the task force to a) postpone the November 8th
> submission of the Task Force report to the Names Council until
> November 22;
> b) in that time frame, work with the constituency's executive committee to
> try to reach a concensus among the constituency based on the new transfer
> policy ideas; and c) if such concensus is reached, recommend to the Task
> Force that such concensus position replace the current interim report.
>
> BALLOT:
>
> [ ] supports postponing the Transfer's Task Force Interim Report
> by 2 weeks
> in order to find this new concensus;
> [ ] opposes taking the time to explore this new concensus and supports the
> Transfer's Task Force Interim Report in its current form;
> [ ] reject the Transfer's Task Force Interim Report; or
> [ ]  abstain
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ross@tucows.com
> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 12:21 PM
> To: tim@godaddy.com; Michael D. Palage; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Proposed Motions - Do I have a Second?
>
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>