[registrars] Transfers update & Ballot

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

Folks,

Quick update on the task force as well as some important details concerning
the ballot;

Task Force;

Public Comment Period: The public comment period has formally closed. We
received a ton of comments through the various outreach channels during the
comment period, but very little by way of the public comment forum on
dnso.org. We are now engaged in the process of digesting the comments
received and following up with parties that we have more questions for. If
you still have comments on the Interim Report, drop me a note with details
and I will do my best to get them in front of the task force for
consideration. I had hoped that we could have gathered up the loose ends
during the Monday constituency call, but there was a distinct lack of
participation that made gathering salient comment difficult.

Registrar Proposals: As a tactical note, I will be proposing a ballot later
on today that requests that you rank, in order of preference, the proposals
that the Constituency has reviewed over the last two years. Understanding
what level of support each of these proposals has will be included in an
analysis that I have been requested to complete for the Final Report. This
largely an administrative exercise, but an important ballot nonetheless.
More details later.

Schedule: Based on the public comment period and input from the Names
Council, ICANN staff etc., we are targeting Nov. 24/2002 for publication of
our Final Report. This Final Report will be substantially different in form
from the Interim Report and will include all comments received over the past
few weeks. This final report will be issued for public comment prior to it
being forwarded to the Names Council as the formal recommendation of the
Task Force in time for their December 14/2002 meeting in Amsterdam. This
means two things; a) be prepared to get your final comments on the issue
together and tabled with the Task Force within the forthcoming timelines and
b) be prepared to discuss whether or not the Constituency will put forward a
formal position on the Final Report. As timelines are tight, if we decide to
put forward a position on the document, we will need to discuss what this
position is and move quickly to a ballot.

If there are questions on any of these items, please contact me as quickly
as possible. I am currently quite soaked for time because of the significant
work that needs to go into meeting the timelines above.

Ballot;

I'm glad that we are moving forward with a formal ballot using our new
system. Hopefully we can move beyond the obvious procedural challenges
quickly and turn this into a cornerstone for the efficient operation of our
Constituency. It is my sincere hope that exercises like this become the norm
and not the exception.

A few of you have written to me personally looking for guidance on this
ballot - rather than dealing with these inquiries one-by-one, here is an
outline of my feeling concerning the ballots as it relates to the reality of
the schedule above and the current state of the political dynamics within
the DNSO.

Ballot #2 - Postponement of comment period; As I indicated above, the DNSO
is very close to deciding this issue. The ballot proposes that we delay this
decision in favor of exploring a "new consensus". In reviewing the history
of this issue yesterday, a very important detail came into focus - each time
we have approached a significant milestone with the transfers issue, someone
has advocated postponement in favor of exploring alternative options. And,
in each case, these alternate options have either a) not been brought to the
table or b) not been favorable to the interests of all registrars, but
rather, they favored one or two registrars.

However, recognizing that there are a number of registrars that have raised
significant and detailed concerns with the Interim Report, it would be
inappropriate for me to request that you vote fully in favor of the Interim
Report. This document is now historical in nature and it is the Task Force's
intent to take all of these concerns into account for the Final Report.

My recommendation is as follows;

- if you raised concerns during the comment period for the Interim Report,
abstain on this ballot and give yourself a chance to review the final report
to ensure that your comments were taken into account.

- if you did not raise concerns during the comment period and have
continuously supported the majority opinion of the Constituency, vote in
favor of the report.

Voting against the report will simply serve the interests of those
registrars that have unreasonably opposed the development of this policy
since we started down this path almost two years ago.

Ballot #3 - My concern with this particular ballot is quite simple, and
largely procedural. While at times in the past I have recommended increased
participation in the Task Force, I strongly believe that this time has past.
It is unreasonable to expect that a new registrar representative will be
able to come up to speed in time to proactively contribute to the work of
the Task Force given the schedule that I have outlined above. Further, it is
unreasonable to expect that the Task Force will be willing to re-open
negotiations on the report given the significant effort that they have
already put into it. (Remember, the Task Force consists of representatives
from other Constituencies who have their own agenda with this issue).
Lastly, given that the ballot requires that if the Registrar Task Force
representatives fail to agree on key issues within the Task Force, they must
bring they issue back to the Constituency for a full vote of the membership.
While consultation with the Constituency is critical to coming to consensus
on key decisions, this will provide those that have irrationally opposed the
issue over the last two years with a key tool that they can use to delay the
closure of this issue indefinitely. All they would have to do would be to
continue with their unreasonable opposition, oppose everything that we bring
to the table and force a Constituency vote on every single point. Given that
a Constituency vote, according to our bylaws, must be 7 days long and given
the tactics that those opposing the development of this policy have used in
the past, I have no reason to believe that the situation that I describe is
far-fetched.

Accordingly, I strongly recommend that you vote to defeat ballot #3.

Closure of this issue on December 14 is within reach -   "We can either
unite behind a clear consensus position that has emerged and bring an end to
process[es] which seek to undermine the stability of a fledging industry ,
or we can let it lead to our self destruction." (Sorry to quote Mike again)


                       -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