[registrars] Proposed Ballots

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

Hello All:

In Rio the following ballots were discussed in addition to the currently
proposed Bulk Whois Ballot. It was agreed that by posting these ballots
simultaneously in a batch we would hopefully maximize voter turn out to a
level similar to the last elections. Ballots #2 and #3 are being put out for
public comment for the first time although they were discussed in Rio. If
there are any comments or friendly amendments please make them as soon as
possible.

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage



BALLOT #1 - BULK WHOIS BALLOT

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
unsolicited 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
Constituency;
[] Abstain.


BALLOT #2 - WIPO UDRP BALLOT

The ICANN Registrar Constituency played an active role in the creation and
implementation of ICANN Uniform Dispute Resolution  Policy (UDRP) back in
1999. The UDRP in conjunction with national laws have provided a reasonable
approach toward balancing the rights of domain name holders versus the
rights of third parties. However, the Registrar Constituency expresses
significant concern about the proposed expanse of the UDRP as set forth in
the letter from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to ICANN
dated February 21, 2003.

The ICANN Registrar constituency opposes any expanse of the UDRP to include
country names or the names and acronyms of International Intergovernmental
Organizations (IGOs). Such an expanse of the UDRP was never contemplated or
bargained for, and if approved would threaten the underlying viability of
the UDRP itself.

[] 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
Constituency;
[] Abstain.


BALLOT #3 - New TLDs

The ICANN gTLD Registrar Constituency continues to support the expansion of
the namespace in a controlled and responsible manner. The Constituency
supports  the criteria for expansion set forth in Stuart Lynn's paper,
released on March 25, 2003
(http://www.icann.org/riodejaneiro/stld-rfp-topic.htm), as a practical step
forward in a discussion that has been historically beleaguered by
theoretical discussion of academic improbabilities. The Registrar
Constituency believes that the Board of Directors of ICANN should adopt
these final criteria, without delay and further that;

(1) ICANN should, in parallel, move forward with the creation of an
Accredited Registry Services Provider program which, having been based on
objective criteria, facilitates competition, innovation and continued growth
within this nascent sector;

(2) ICANN's Board of Directors move to implement a scalable long-term plan
that institutionalizes the processes by which new generic top-level domain
names are chartered and delegated and that such processes should governed by
the following broad principles;

- that the ongoing expansion continue take place in a controlled and
responsible manner,

- that any criteria used to evaluate charter and delegation proposals be
objective and equitably applied to all proposals

- that delegants and operators be encouraged to leverage existing registry
protocols and not create new ones

- that delegants be encouraged to explore and implement new business models

- that businesses be allowed to fail, but that strong redelegation practices
be immediately implemented to ensure TLD
continuity

- that registrar competition continue to be encouraged and remain a
cornerstone of this growing market and that all accredited registrars
continue to have equal and equitable access to registry operations and
services

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

[] I do not support these statements as a formal position of the Registrar
Constituency;

[] Abstain