RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com

[Elana Broitman <ebroitman@register.com>]

Title: RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com

I would support Mike's deliberate course of action, as long as we can get this done without delay.  Perhaps we should aim for final vote at DC meeting?

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>