RE: [registrars] Discussion stage for balloting procedures, in advance of voting on this issue.
- To: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <Registrars@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [registrars] Discussion stage for balloting procedures, in advance of voting on this issue.
- From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:46:04 -0400
- Importance: Normal
- In-reply-to: <AFEF39657AEEC34193C494DBD7179222250807@phoenix.mit>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I was originally a strong believer in Option #4 as the original ballots
within the constituency were done via the list server. However, I heard a
lot of complaints from people regarding being called/lobbied during the
voting process which is why I thought Option #3 might be the better
solution. However, I could personally live with Option #3 or #4 as both have
a built in accountability factor.
Regarding some of your reasons for supporting Option #4, either option #3 or
#4 is simply a click of the mouse using the current software there is no
I agree focusing on substantive matters would be in our best interest and
with that introduction I would encourage all registrars, particularly
foreign registrars, to read this most recent case out of the Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals. This is the court which has jurisdicition over the
following registries .COM, .NET, .ORG and .BIZ.
The reason this case is significant is that it addresses registrars
potential waiver of immunity under the ACPA when complying with a foreign
court order. Good stuff, enjoy.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
> Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 8:13 PM
> To: Registrars@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Discussion stage for balloting procedures, in
> advance of voting on this issue.
> Hello All,
> > 4. Continue to post individual voting results, during the
> > entire voting
> > period.
> I support this last option because:
> - it is easy to administer
> - it is consistent with an open email discussion forum amongst
> registrars, where the mailing list is publicly archived
> - it is consistent with past practice of the registrars constituency
> - it is consistent with the IETF - where views are expressed openly for
> all to see and contribute
> - the cost of making a change in terms of volunteer time or software
> solutions outweighs any gains
> - the present voting system is the most effective we have had to date
> - I would rather we focus on some policy issues rather than fiddling
> further with the voting process
> Bruce Tonkin
> As a member of the registrars constituency