RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>]

Ballot 1 - We would support.

Ballot 2 - We would likely support.

Ballot 3 - We would be interested in hearing from others on this topic.

How is what Stuart is proposing for this round of sTLDs any different
than the first round? And given the impact that aero, coop, and museum
has had on our business I'm not sure why we should even care.

The comments added regarding gTLDs are good but leave a few questions
also.

>(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;

I understand the purpose, but in practice, will this require gTLD
applicants to have a prior arrangement with an accredited provider? Or
only that if approved, they must either become or use an accredited
provider? I'm not sure I'm getting how this will facilitate competition.
It seems a little like the chicken or the egg issue.

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

This seems to imply that the best protocols already exist. I agree that
life would be much easier if we had a single protocol to deal with. On
the other hand I would not want to stifle innovation and potential
future benefits to save a little time today. Besides, so far, even with
EPP, each implementation has been different. I don't think we could
support this ballot with this comment as part of it.

Tim


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On
Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 6:33 AM
To: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: [registrars] Proposed Ballots
Importance: High

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