RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots

[Paul Stahura <stahura@enom.com>]

I believe it is a separate motion/topic.
and not an ammendment of some other motion.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 3:24 PM
To: Ross Wm. Rader
Cc: 'Paul Stahura'; registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots



agreed. we must keep our ballots clear and concise. I prefer we address
:43 as a seporate topic. If we ammend the ballot then we muddy the
message on bulk whois.

-rick



On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> > I second this motion
> > Paul
>
> If it were up to me, I would prefer to see our constituency seek
> proposals from the membership regarding how port 43 could best be dealt
> with. Tiered access/restricted access is one way that the problem can be
> addressed. This may not be the best way to deal with the concerns that
> have been raised. I would be hesitant to endorse a position that solely
> considered this course of action as the proposal.
>
>
>
>                        -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 Paul Stahura
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 5:23 PM
> > To: 'registrars@dnso.org'
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots
> >
> >
> > I second this motion
> > Paul
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Elana Broitman
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 1:47 PM
> > To: 'Michael D. Palage'; registrars@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots
> >
> >
> > Mike - could you please also include the following additional
> > ballot - this is meant to address the port 43/public Whois
> > issue without affecting Brian's bulk whois ballot.
> >
> > Thanks, Elana
> >
> > The Registrar Constituency proposes that ICANN change the
> > requirements to provide contact data via the public Whois
> > database and the Port 43 Whois database, due, among other
> > issues to the privacy concerns raised by European Union and
> > European government authorities, consumer groups, and privacy
> > advocates.  The Constituency proposes that a Whois database
> > with contact information continue to be available on a
> > protected basis to specified legitimate interests, including,
> > for example, intellectual property holders seeking to protect
> > their intellectual property interests, law enforcement, and
> > registrars and registries seeking to request and complete
> > transfers and for other appropriate technical reasons.
> > Therefore, the Constituency proposes that the GNSO Council's
> > privacy task force include among its goals the amendment of
> > the Whois data requirements per the above guidelines.
> >
> > > [] 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.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 12:07 PM
> > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>