RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com

[dwascher@iaregistry.com]

I would agreeing with the need for structural separation between registries
and registrar where one registrar would be provided a competitive advantage.
However, I see a difference between someone consulting from an operational /
technical standpoint verses a management role, in either case there is a
need-to-know clause. The dotNAME document that is referenced has several
controls built into it just for that reason. I see nothing that would
preclude Michael from continuing to serve as Chair of the Constituency as he
has done an excellent job.

Besides we can't seem to resolve 3 years worth of transfer issues even when
we vote and to think that a single person running the Excom may have some
influence over our businesses.

David W.

::-----Original Message-----
::From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
::Behalf Of Michael D Palage
::Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 6:07 PM
::To: ross@tucows.com; 'Elana Broitman'; tim@godaddy.com; wessorh@ar.com
::Cc: registrars@dnso.org
::Subject: RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
::
::
::Hello All:
::
::I have to finish finalizing plans for the DC meeting.
::
::Rushing a by-law amendment through when the Constituency By-laws
::need to be
::rewritten from the ground-up and then submitted to ICANN for approval this
::July in connection the reorganization is not in my view a
::productive use of
::time. But I am not going to oppose it.
::
::Trying to be a diplomate in this process. If we pass the by-law amendment
::next week, then we would have to exclude Hakon from participating in the
::constituency. In such case PersonalNames is likely to appoint a
::person that
::was not a director that would just posting emails on Hakon behalf. The
::proposed by-law amendment is not exactly air tight to prevent the concerns
::raised by some members.
::
::
::My proposed course of action is as follows:
::
::(1) Schedule a constituency call with GNR, PersonalNames and the Registrar
::Constituency to voice our concerns and understand why they felt this
::marketing move was necessary; Based on Elana's previous post I will try to
::set this up for Friday or Monday.
::(2) Ask Hakon to voluntarily designate another representative to the
::constituency that does not meet the criteria of Ross' modified motion;
::(3) After discussing this matter with GNR, PersonalNames, and
::Hakon then we
::can decide how to incorporate this proposed by-law amendment into a by-law
::rewrite.
::
::
::
::
::> -----Original Message-----
::> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
::> Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
::> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 5:27 PM
::> To: 'Elana Broitman'; tim@godaddy.com; wessorh@ar.com
::> Cc: registrars@dnso.org
::> Subject: RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
::>
::>
::> I'm cool with Tim's amendment and this subsequent revision Elana. Per
::> Rick's most recent message, we should probably let things percolate a
::> little bit through more discussion, but I don't see any reason why we
::> shouldn't submit this or something similar to the Excomm in time for
::> their Monday call.
::>
::>
::>                        -rwr
::>
::>
::>
::>
::> "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
::> idiot."
::> - Steven Wright
::>
::> Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/blog
::>
::>
::>
::> -----Original Message-----
::> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On
::> Behalf Of Elana Broitman
::> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 3:33 PM
::> To: 'tim@godaddy.com'; ross@tucows.com; wessorh@ar.com
::> Cc: registrars@dnso.org
::> Subject: RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
::>
::>
::> Tim - I would offer a friendly amendment to your language to keep it
::> within the more narrow relm proposed by Ross, as follows:
::>
::> "... that any officer, employee, or board director of any ICANN
::> recognized
::> gTLD registry in the possession of or with access to registry
::> >Proprietary Information
::> >(http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-apph-06mar01.h
::> tm#A-
::> >3.1 in the case of GNR) or Registry Sensitive Information
::> >(http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-apph-06mar01.h
::> tm#A- not be permitted to participate in this constituency at any level,
::> in any capacity, for a period of one year since holding such position
::> and that our by-laws be amended to reflect this."
::> Regards, Elana
::> -----Original Message-----
::> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com]
::> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 2:29 PM
::> To: ross@tucows.com; wessorh@ar.com
::> Cc: registrars@dnso.org
::> Subject: RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
::>
::>
::> What about something like this:
::> "... that any officer, employee, or board director of any ICANN
::> recognized
::> gTLD registry not be permitted to participate in this constituency at
::> any
::> level, in any capacity, for a period of one year since holding such
::> position
::> and that our by-laws be amended to reflect this."
::> Tim
::> -----Original Message-----
::> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
::> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 11:36 AM
::> To: tim@godaddy.com; 'Rick Wesson'
::> Cc: registrars@dnso.org
::> Subject: RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
::>
::>
::>
::> > Like it or not, there will never again be a clear distinction
::> > between registrars and registries. We are all in this to make
::> > a profit. While I don't want people involved on this list, or
::> > in the RC, that have intimate, confidential knowledge of our
::> > businesses, I also don't want to preclude a legitimate party
::> > from being able to participate.
::> Tim - if this has been lost in the exchange somewhere, let me clarify
::> for the record - this is *precisely* the sentiment and intent of the
::> motion. I believe that it strikes an appropriate balance between these
::> two competing dynamics to the benefit of the constituency.
::> If there is a clearer way to word it, I am open to friendly amendments
::> of the motion.
::>
::>
::>                        -rwr
::>
::>
::>
::>
::> "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
::> idiot."
::> - Steven Wright
::> Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/blog
::>
::>
::>
::>
::> > -----Original Message-----
::> > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org
::> > [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
::> > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 11:46 AM
::> > To: Rick Wesson; Ross Wm. Rader
::> > Cc: registrars@dnso.org
::> > Subject: RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
::> >
::> >
::> > Rick,
::> >
::> > > completely within our capabilities to clearly separate
::> > registrars from
::> > > those that work for registries
::> >
::> > That I don't think I agree with. If that is where this is
::> > leading then I would object. I don't want this list, and the
::> > RC that represents my business interests, captured by a group
::> > of mostly small registrars promoting their own agenda.
::> >
::> > Like it or not, there will never again be a clear distinction
::> > between registrars and registries. We are all in this to make
::> > a profit. While I don't want people involved on this list, or
::> > in the RC, that have intimate, confidential knowledge of our
::> > businesses, I also don't want to preclude a legitimate party
::> > from being able to participate.
::> >
::> > I see no member of the RC or this list who I would object to
::> > participating.
::> >
::> > Tim
::> >
::> >
::> > -----Original Message-----
::> > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
::> > Behalf Of Rick Wesson
::> > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 10:09 AM
::> > To: Ross Wm. Rader
::> > Cc: registrars@dnso.org
::> > Subject: Re: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
::> >
::> >
::> >
::> >
::> > Ross,
::> >
::> > I support this position. I believe that it is completely
::> > within our capabilities to clearly separate registrars from
::> > those that work for registries and to have this constituency
::> > membership only reflect registrars intrests.
::> >
::> > best,
::> >
::> > -rick
::> >
::> >
::> > On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
::> >
::> > > I would like to formally move that any representative of any ICANN
::> > > recognized gTLD registry in the possession of or with access to
::> > > registry Proprietary Information
::> > >
::> > (http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-apph-
::> > 06mar01.htm#A-
::> > > 3.1 in the case of GNR) or Registry Sensitive Information
::> > >
::> > (http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-apph-
::> > 06mar01.htm#A-
::> > > 3.2 also in the case of GNR) not be permitted to
::> > participate in this
::> > > constituency at any level, in any capacity, for a period of
::> > one year
::> > > since the last receipt of such information and that our by-laws be
::> > > amended to reflect this.
::> > >
::> > >
::> > >
::> > > Regards,
::> > >
::> > > Ross Wm. Rader
::> > > Tucows Inc.
::> > >
::> > >
::> > >
::> > >
::> > >
::> > > ----- Original Message -----
::> > > From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>
::> > > To: <registrars@dnso.org>
::> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 8:26 AM
::> > > Subject: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
::> > >
::> > >
::> > > > As PersonalNames is now an ICANN accredited registrar they are
::> > > > eligible
::> > to
::> > > > subscribe to the registrar mailing list, and they have asked to be
::>
::> > added.
::> > > To
::> > > > date PersonalNames has not paid any membership dues so it is not
::> > eligible
::> > > to
::> > > > vote in any constituency matters.
::> > > >
::> > > > Yesterday there were several posts asking the Registrar Executive
::> > > Committee
::> > > > to schedule a call with PersonalNames. Although the Executive
::> > > > Committee stands ready to assist the constituency in this
::> > matter, I
::> > > > believe that
::> > > some
::> > > > dialogue between PersonalNames and the rest of the registrar
::> > > > community
::> > > might
::> > > > make any such call more productive.
::> > > >
::> > > > The only PersonalNames representative that has asked to join the
::> > registrar
::> > > > mailing list to date is Hakon Haugnes.
::> > > >
::> > > > Best regards,
::> > > >
::> > > > Michael D. Palage
::> > > >
::> > > >
::> > > >
::> > >
::> >
::> >
::> >
::>
::