RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots

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

Mike,

I wasn't attempting to vote, just to share my thoughts on these ballots
as of today, and looking for some clarification on ballot 3.

These are open to discussion, correct?

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 11:07 AM
To: Tim Ruiz; registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots

Tim,

Thanks for the feedback, but we will be voting using the software. The
purpose of posting the ballots was to see if any one had any proposed
rewording/amendments.

The next round of TLDs will be exclusively sponsored, however, I believe
that at least some that are likely to be proposed will be of a much
larger
registrant community that the original three. However, that being said,
I
believe that with some education, marketing and outreach some of the
original sponsored TLDs could reach a much more larger market.

I have some additional ideas in this area, but I am buried. However, I
will
share them with you and the group latter on.

Best regards,

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 12:00 PM
> To: 'Michael D. Palage'; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots
>
>
> 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
>
>
>