RE: [registrars] Bulk Whois Ballot

["Cute, Brian" <bcute@networksolutions.com>]

Michael,

I agree with you that sending a signal to other constituencies that we are
willing to work with them through a given process is important.  However, I
think we can achieve that in other ways.  The motion calls for the
elimination of Bulk WHOIS.  The position is by nature extreme in the sense
that it is not really a negotiable position at the outset -- we would not
settle for partial elimination or unduly delayed elimination, right?  The
real issue for other constituencies is whether they can live with the impact
of its elimination or not.  That's where the heavy lifting, in terms of
persuasion, will come in for us.  
For better or worse, I don't believe that hard core opponents will be swayed
by softening the motion.  I think that outreach to potential supporters will
be best made once our position is in play.  What's important is that, when
we refer the motion -- if approved by ballot -- we will be asking ICANN to
initiate a policy making process that by design incorporates all
constituencies' voices.       

Therefore, I would suggest that the motion go to ballot as written.  I agree
that it should be on extended voting of 2 weeks.  I think we should discuss
fully the point you raise and our strategy in moving this forward as an
agenda item in Rio.

Regards,
Brian


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 10:34 AM
To: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: [registrars] Bulk Whois Ballot


Brian:

Thank you for sending this proposed ballot and supporting documentation to
the Registrar Executive Committee. I will ask Rick to create a ballot with
an extended voting window (2 weeks) on this proposal. Having talked to a
number of constituencies over the past couple of weeks on this matter I
would like to offer the following friendly amendment. Specially, the
preamble should read "The Registrar Constituency proposes that ICANN TAKE
AFFIRMATIVE STEPS TOWARDS eliminating the Bulk WHOIS obligation".

The reason for this friendly amendment is as follows. First, I believe it is
a more prudently worded statement that gives our constituency and names
council representatives more flexibility in achieving the desired result of
removing the Bulk Access provisions. I believe the original worded document
would unreasonably alienate the business and intellectual property
constituencies that would be worried about third party intellectual property
monitoring services. Some of these services which are offered by a number of
ICANN accredited registrars and members of this constituency.

Second, I believe that providing the names council or the ICANN Board with
ultimatums is never a productive negotiating skill. Moreover, rewriting the
bi-lateral contracts between ICANN and accredited registrars may not be as
easy as some people think. I will dig up some correspondence that ICANN
provided last year on this matter.

I believe that registrars working in conjunction with the user community
whose concerns about privacy have long been ignored, along with the
intellectual property constituency is the best way to achieve a
comprehensive "TIMELY" solution to a Whois model that fails to meet the
needs of most Internet stakeholders. I believe that by working together we
can achieve a common goal much more quickly than if we were to advance a
solution that only addressed our concerns.

Just my two cents for what it is worth.

Mike







-----Original Message-----
From: Cute, Brian [mailto:bcute@networksolutions.com]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 5:12 PM
To: 'michael@palage.com'; 'bevans@interaccess.com'; 'tmdenton@magma.ca';
'wessorh@ar.com'
Subject: FW: [registrars] Motion


Having put the duly seconded motion to discussion and seeing no proposed
amendments or dissent during the discussion period, I ask the excom put the
motion to ballot.  The motion proposed a formal position to be taken by the
rc that, if supported by a majority after being put to ballot, will be
communicated to the Council and the ICANN Board.  The position is stated as
follows:


"The Registrar Constituency proposes that ICANN eliminate the
Bulk WHOIS obligation since it: forces registrars to sell one
of their most valuable assets -- their entire customer list
-- to competitors and third parties; raises significant
privacy concerns for both registrants and registrars; and
harms consumers by contributing to unsolicitied marketing
campaigns."



[] I support the statement as a formal position of the Registrar
Constituency;

[] I  do not support the statement as a formal position of the Registrar
Consituency;

[] Abstain.


Note to excom: If the above requires substantive edits, I would be happy to
resubmit.

Regards,
Brian


-----Original Message-----
From: Cute, Brian
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 3:38 PM
To: 'Registrars@dnso.org'
Subject: RE: [registrars] Motion


All,

Having seen a second to the motion and initial support with no objections or
dissent, I suggest that we keep the discussion period on this motion open
until 4:00 p.m. EST Monday, March 17, 2003.  At that time, based on inputs
and amendments, if any, the constituency could refer the motion to the excom
for purposes of putting the question to ballot.

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 8:10 AM
To: paul@internetters.co.uk
Cc: ross@tucows.com; bcute@networksolutions.com; Registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Motion


Go Daddy Software and Wild West Domains supports this motion as well.

Tim

 -------- Original Message --------
   Subject: RE: [registrars] Motion
   From: Paul Westley <paul@internetters.co.uk>
   Date: Fri, March 7, 2003 4:11 pm
   To: <ross@tucows.com>, "'Cute, Brian'" <bcute@networksolutions.com>,
         <Registrars@dnso.org>

   Is it possible to "third" or otherwise support this motion?

   Paul Westley
   Internetters
   UK

   At 04:59 PM 07/03/2003 -0500, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
   > > I move that the constituency adopt the following position to
   > > be subsequently communicated to the Council and Board
   >
   >I would happily second this.
   >
   >(And note for the record that this would be only the second time that
   >I have publicly agreed with the esteemed representative from Network
   >Solutions :)
   >
   >
   >
   >                        -rwr
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like
   >an idiot."
   >- Steven Wright
   >
   >Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > > -----Original Message-----
   > > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org
   > > [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Cute, Brian
   > > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 4:44 PM
   > > To: 'Registrars@dnso.org'
   > > Subject: [registrars] Motion
   > >
   > >
   > > All,
   > >
   > > I move that the constituency adopt the following position to
   > > be subsequently communicated to the Council and Board:
   > >
   > > "The Registrar Constituency proposes that ICANN eliminate the
   > > Bulk WHOIS obligation since it: forces registrars to sell one
   > > of their most valuable assets -- their entire customer list
   > > -- to competitors and third parties; raises significant
   > > privacy concerns for both registrants and registrars; and
   > > harms consumers by contributing to unsolicitied marketing
   > > campaigns." [end]
   > >
   > > Regards,
   > > Brian
   > >
   > >