<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] Request to Deny Multiple Votes/Registrar
Hi Paul...
Sorry, that was sarcasm. I think everyone here who knows me realized that
I would never seriously advance such a proposal, although it has been
advanced in the past by others.
The point I wanted to make to Tim is that these rules protect smaller
registrars, who just happen to be almost all the registrars. Tim's
interests would certainly be threatened by a proposal to allocate votes by
market share. Likewise, smaller registrars don't tend to have multiple
accreditations and allocating voting rights in that manner threatens the
interests of those of us who are smaller (that is, the vast majority of us).
Having more market share or more accreditations is not an indication that a
company has better insight in how the industry should be run or even if it
should be run at all. I say one vote to each entity that owns any portion
of one or more registrars. None of this controlling interest stuff. If
there is overlapping ownership anywhere in an ownership chain, it should be
one vote.
--On Saturday, April 26, 2003 12:08 AM +0100 Paul Westley
<paul@internetters.co.uk> wrote:
> This idea is definitely a very slippery slope. Why not just give Network
> Solutions a veto on anything the constituency might like to do? (Sorry
> Brian :-)
>
> One independent registrar having one vote is going to give a more
> balanced viewpoint to reflect constituency views.
>
> Paul Westley
> Internetters
>
> At 06:43 PM 25/04/2003 -0400, Jim Archer wrote:
>
>
>> --On Friday, April 25, 2003 2:48 PM -0500 Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> To continue to deny it membership simply because it has the same parent
>>> company is short sighted, unrealistic, and a little bit paranoid.
>>
>> Tim, I see your point. Perhaps we should offer each registrar 1 vote
>> for each domain name they sponsor. Would you support this proposal?
>
*************************
James W. Archer
CEO
http://www.RegistrationTek.com
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|