RE: [registrars] Transfers TF Report

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

Ross,

When the overworked, underpaid, executive committee gets around to it we
will put forward revised by-laws with specific procedures. Tim has agreed to
take the lead in the area but he has been buried as of late, as most
everyone else.

Historically, formal votes were rarely done because the procedure was highly
manual, even with the votebot.

With the new software voting should go a lot smoother.

Aside from formal votes on task forces, elected positions, etc. historically
there is generally a first and then a second.

As far as the proposed new by-laws I would propose a little higher threshold
than just a first and a second. I would submit that getting 10% of the
constituency mobilized (about 5 registrars) would be sufficient. The problem
in controversial issues would be two competing groups submitting laundry
lists of issues to be voted upon.

That is why I think the Executive Committee serves as sort of a safety value
to make sure that the ballots are neutral as possible.

Generally before a formal ballot is agreed upon there are various tweaks
made by the executive committee and the names council representatives. In an
effort to increase the open and transparent nature of the executive
committee, names council representatives are also permitted to join the
weekly execom call.

I do not know if it answered your question. Ideally this is far from a
perfect solution but it is the best that we currently have.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 4:46 PM
To: Michael D. Palage; registrars@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [registrars] Transfers TF Report


So then what is the process for requesting a vote on any proposition?

                       -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: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>; <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 4:35 PM
Subject: RE: [registrars] Transfers TF Report


> Ross,
>
> The Executive Committee is going to be working on the formal ballot in
> connection with the Whois & Transfer Task Force. Although I see how your
> points are relevant toward getting people to make a decision. I thought a
> more appropriate ballot would be along the lines of:
>
> [ ] I support the Transfer's Task Force report in whole;
> [ ] I support most of the principles contained within the Transfer's Task
> Force, but believe that addition clarification needs to be addressed by a
> registrar/registry implementation committee, i.e. dispute resolution
> procedures, standardize language, etc.
> [ ] I cannot support the principles contained within the Task Force
report.
>
> This is just a proposed ballot that I just typed up. This succinct ballot
> gives our names council representatives much more clear guidance, IMHO.
>
> Again, the exact format of the ballots will be discussed during the next
> Exec Call.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 3:28 PM
> To: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: [registrars] Transfers TF Report
>
>
> Title: "Three or Four (or Six) Reasons Why We Should Support This
Report..."
> Summary: Please vote in favor of the motion that I just tabled.
>
>
> Reason #1 - "We have taken far too long in dealing with this issue." This
is
> simple. Its taken almost two years to get to this point. That is far too
> long. Further delay doesn't mean much more than "further delay". We should
> have had this cleared up more than a year ago, but we didn't. Let's not
> waste the opportunity that we have in front of us to clear the issue up
> *now*.
>
> Reason #2 - We will never have a perfect solution. As it currently stands,
> the perfect solution, in my books, is one that we can implement. These
> recommendations are implementable and therefore deserve our support.
Perfect
> solutions do not exist, but perfect solutions are more common than
practical
> ones that satisfy everyone's political sensibility. Let's not waste the
time
> and effort that has gone into this report. This solution is workable
without
> putting any registrar or registry out of business because of the attendant
> complexity.
>
> Reason #3 - Getting EPP working will create different problems. EPP isn't
a
> magic bullet. All EPP does is make it easier for registrars to figure out
> whether or not someone is authorized to request a transfer. EPP does not
> tell us if the person making that request is doing some from an informed
> perspective. In other words, EPP itself does not stop registrars from
> slamming through inappropriate marketing. In some respects, it almost
makes
> it easier. Let's deal with EPP when EPP becomes an issue. I fully believe
> that the recommendations of this report will allow us to avoid some of the
> "out-of-the-box" problems that EPP will pose, but if it doesn't, lets take
a
> look at the issue when we have some experience with EPP. Let's not defeat
> this report because of what we don't know about EPP, let's approve this
> report because of the problems that it will solve today.
>
> Reason #4 - This solution has buy-in outside the Constituency. Again very
> simple. Over the past two years, this is the only series of
recommendations
> that has buy-in from Registrars, Registries and Registrants. It is not
easy
> to get all of these parties to see eye-to-eye, lets not waste this
> opportunity to get what we all want. Voting to defeat this report would
> represent a sell-out of these groups to our own self-interest. Let's avoid
> the tremendous hit in credibility and vote to approve this report.
>
> Reason #5 - The recommendations can change after they are approved. The
> report advocates that ICANN take a look at how things are going every once
> in a while. If things aren't going well, the Constituency can always
change
> its mind and request that the NC take a second look at the policies. We
> don't have this opportunity now and we would stand to gain through some
> "learning by doing" policy development vs. the guess work that we are
doing
> now.
>
> Reason #6 - I take this directly from the report because it is important
and
> speaks for itself. " The recommendations contained in this report are the
> product of an open and transparent process that took place over the course
> of a year. Hundreds of hours of discussion were devoted to the topic, many
> proposals were considered, dozens of revisions were proposed and thousands
> of words debated the merits of specific recommendations and alternate
> approaches. In other words, a process took place by which the best
> recommendations were substantively discussed, clarified, compromised and
> eventually manifested themselves as the consensus recommendations
contained
> in this report.
>
> The Task Force believes that it is this approach, the process, which
> represents the single most compelling argument in favor of adopting these
> recommendations. The fact they do represent the best ideas of the
community,
> the ones upon which we most agree and perhaps most importantly, the ones
> with the most understood and refined impact. This is not to say that
> concepts and ideas that did not make it into this report were not good or
> well-considered, to the contrary, there were many that were. But, these
> bright ideas did not get the support of the community necessary to include
> them as a consensus recommendation of this report. Similarly there were
also
> many reasoned criticisms of these recommendations that were put forward.
> But, unless they were shared by a reasonable cross-section of the
community,
> it was equally impossible to put them forward as the consensus of the
> community. This is one of the features of the consensus policy development
> process - both the consensus support and consensus disagreement must be
> substantively dealt with. Again, the Task Force believes that it has
> fulfilled this required.
> However, we have no presumptions that new consensus ideas and dissent
won't
> emerge from the DNSO. Accordingly, we have attempted to temper these
> recommendations with very finite and predictable review mechanics that
will
> allow the DNSO to adjust or correct the policy over the short, medium and
> longer terms. We believe that a moderate approach of this nature ensures
> that the policy in effect will continue to reflect the will of the
community
> for the foreseeable future.
>
> The consensus policy development process is neither easy nor trivial. Nor
> should it be. Appropriate processes lead to appropriate results. Balanced
> processes lead to balanced results. The Task Force believes that the
> processes employed in the development of these recommendations are both
> balanced and appropriate, but to the extent that the results need to be
> adjusted, a similarly balanced and appropriate approach should be taken so
> as to ensure the continued integrity of the results."
>
> I remain available for questions or clarifications...
>
>                        -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
>