[registrars] SiteFinder Ballot

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Elana:

Thank you for conveying to Paul and the ICANN community the Registrar's
motion on the SiteFinder resolution, see
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/broitman-to-twomey-01oct03.htm. However,
I would like to point out what I believe to be an oversight in your
communication. As part of documenting the bottoms-up consensus process, it
is important to know the actual signatories to the ballot. Simply
representing percentages without actual signatories is subject to scrutiny
and undermines the voice of those registrars that voted. By way of example,
the fact that there are approximately only 1/3 of all ICANN accredited
registrars participating within the Registrar Constituency, seriously
undermines your representation that the motion passed unanimously by 73% of
the eligible votes.

By way of example, I refer to the letter of support that was submitted in
connection with ICANN reform last summer. In that document all registrars
supporting the letter were identified, along with the market share that
these registrars represented. This provided a much more reliable document
should a consensus decision be required.

I would personally recommend you that you append to your original
communication the actual results of those registrars voting in favor of the
ballot. The registrars have nothing to hide and it can only bolster the
registrar's position, and assist in any consensus building process.

Best regards,

Mike