RE: [registrars] Request to Deny Multiple Votes/Registrar

["Rob Hall" <rob@momentous.com>]

Thanks Elana,

I am trying to distill all the comments that have occured, and once I get a
handle on them, I will present formal amendments that you may then decide
are friendly or not, and then move to a vote if needed.

I really do appreciate you sheperding this process, and keeping us all on
track.

Have a great weekend.

Rob.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Elana Broitman
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 4:40 PM
To: Tim Ruiz; wessorh@ar.com
Cc: ross@tucows.com; Registrars Mail List; Registrars Executive
Committee
Subject: RE: [registrars] Request to Deny Multiple Votes/Registrar


I just want to respond that in terms of proper and fair process - not
substance on Tim's or Rob's language, if someone proposes an amendment,
which is seconded, and can't be treated as friendly, it will get a separate
vote.

Rob's language - if accepted by Ross, but not by Tim, would need to become a
second separate amendment.

Thanks

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com]
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 4:38 PM
To: wessorh@ar.com
Cc: ross@tucows.com; 'Registrars Mail List'; 'Registrars Executive
Committee'
Subject: RE: [registrars] Request to Deny Multiple Votes/Registrar


Rick,

Those certainly are not the only reasons for multiple accreditations.
What the RC is currently doing is disadvantaging a group of registrars
and blocking them out of the RC altogether because their too successful.
What I am proposing does not block anyone out.

And for those companies that do pursue additional accreditations to
improve their competitive edge, isn't that what a big part of ICANN was
supposed to be about? Or is it that you can only get so big, and can
only be so competitive before you get your hands slapped. It doesn't
make any sense.

Tim


-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com]
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 2:11 PM
To: Tim Ruiz
Cc: ross@tucows.com; 'Registrars Mail List'; 'Registrars Executive
Committee'
Subject: RE: [registrars] Request to Deny Multiple Votes/Registrar


Tim,

I disagree.

Lately many registrars are obtaining multipule accreditatios either to
exploit the connections or for protecting registrant data. Since this
skews the representation for large registrars (as small registrars can't
afford the multipule accreditations) I prefer we keep the rules as they
stand.

-rick



On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> Ross, while I appreciate your concerns, this just isn't the world we
> live in. The current situation leaves registrars such as Wild West
> Domains at a disadvantage as well.
>
> No part of Wild West Domains is owned by Go Daddy Software. It
operates
> independently and only relies on Go Daddy's back end technology for
it's
> registrar services.
>
> Wild West Domains is solely reseller focused while Go Daddy is
> completely retail. However, it has little incentive to be involved in
> the RC since it has no real opportunity to influence anything.
>
> To continue to deny it membership simply because it has the same
parent
> company is short sighted, unrealistic, and a little bit paranoid.
>
> Tim
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On
> Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 12:20 PM
> To: 'Registrars Mail List'
> Cc: 'Registrars Executive Committee'
> Subject: [registrars] Request to Deny Multiple Votes/Registrar
>
>
> >> I'd like to see 1 vote per registrar, no matter  who owns them.
>
>
> ...and I would like to see anything *but* this.
>
> Must we take another kick at this can?
>
> The constituency has visited this issue many, many, many times in the
> past. Each time it happens, we see those that hold multiple
> accreditations push for multiple votes. And each time, we see the
> proposal defeated.
>
> We just went through this just over a year ago so let me restate what
I
> said back then;
>
> ***Tucows strenuously opposes any proposal that provides any entity
with
> additional voting rights for any reason. Having a vibrant,
> representative constituency precludes any bylaw amendment that would
> provide Register.com, GoDaddy and Network Solutions with an estimated
10
> votes between the three of them. Adopting this very serious amendment
> will have the net effect of substantially disadvantaging the majority
of
> registrars. Faced with such a strong political disadvantage would
likely
> lead Tucows to seek additional accreditations in order to level the
> playing field. An "accreditation race" of this nature benefits no one.
> It is an appropriate and unfair way to run our constituency.
>
> Here's a refresher from the last time that we had this discussion
> (Palage, February 21, 2002):
>
> "As was originally voted upon last year and reaffirmed in the vote
taken
> at the start of the Dulles meeting, the spirit of original by-laws
> remains, one vote per registrar parent company, regardless of the
number
> of its subsidiaries or accreditations it may acquire through the
> continued consolidation occurring within the industry."
>
> My formal request is that the executive committee deny any move to
amend
> this important element of the constituencies fundamental composition.
>
>
>                        -rwr
>
>
>
>
> "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
> idiot."
> - Steven Wright
>
> Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/
>
>