Re: [registrars] Transfers TF Report

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

> 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.

Not really - I'm still not completely sure what the process is to take my
proposal to a vote.


                       -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 5:03 PM
Subject: RE: [registrars] Transfers TF Report


> 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
> >
>