RE: [registrars] Motion on Transfers Report

["Rob Hall" <rob@momentous.com>]

Ross,

Perhaps you and Mike can refresh my memory.  I thought we didn't "Direct
names council reps" with a motion.  Rather, they were to vote as they felt
the will of the contituency, which could in fact be a split vote if the
constituency was so split.

I am uncomfortable with a motion that "directs" them to do anything.

I would support an amendment to the motion that shows support for the
report, but I can't vote "YES" to a motion that "directs".  This would be a
bad, since my "no" vote would have nothing to do with the matter at hand,
but rather the procedural issue of mandating how our elected representatives
vote.

Please seperate the two issues.

Rob.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 3:06 PM
To: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: [registrars] Motion on Transfers Report


Folks,

As you are aware, the Transfers TF final report is complete and the Names
Council will shortly vote on whether or not this document represents the
consensus views of the community and whether or not it should become binding
consensus policy.

I believe that this is an emminently "implementable" report that prefers the
interests of our constituency and I will be voting to approve the report.
But before I can do that, we need to get our voting software warmed up and
run a ballot.

The ballot that I propose we run (yes, this is a formal motion) follows
below. We will need someone to second this motion. Friendly amendments are
also welcomed. Note, this motion is worded such that if supported by a
majority of the constituency, it will allow our NC reps to vote to approve
the report. The report can be found here:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021130.NCTransferTF-gaining-and-losing-regi
strars.html

I will be posting some thoughts on the final report later today.

----

Motion #1

"Whereas the Registrar Constituency remains committed to resolving the issue
of domain name portability to the satisfaction of registrars, registries and
registrants and;

Whereas the Constituency has been considering this issue since early 2001,
and;

Whereas the Constituency has supported the development of a consensus policy
through the DNSO Names Council processes, and;

Whereas the Names Council Task Force on Domain Name Transfers has completed
and published its Final Report, and;

Whereas this report makes 29 recommendations that ICANN can adopt as
consensus policy and resolve the issue,

Therefore, let it be resolved that the Constituency formally support this
final report and direct the Constituency Names Council Representatives to
vote in favor of this report at the December 14, 2002 Names Council
meeting."

---

                       -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