Re: [registrars] SiteFinder Ballot

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/1/2003 9:28 PM Michael D. Palage noted that:

> 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.
I believe that this ballot was communicated in a manner completely 
consistent with our bylaws. We do not, nor have we ever purported to, 
represent the interests or views of all registrars. This is a 
constituency with membership. Only members can vote, therefore balloting 
only takes the views of the membership into account. Membership is 
granted without concern or deference to marketshare but only to those 
registrars *that choose to participate*.
But you know this, I am unclear why this continues to be brought up time 
and time again.
An appropriate way to change this arrangement would be to request a 
bylaws amendment.
In my opinion, a change of this nature would create classes of 
membership that would ultimately lead to a large registrar v. small 
registrar rift. We have enough problems to deal with, we shouldn't face 
them divided. I would therefore request that we consider this issue 
closed and continue with the business at hand.
(and along the lines of your logic - and with a lightheart - I send this 
communication to the constituency noting that thus far, Tucows is the 
only registrar that supports my position, but we have more market share 
than the one that you represent, so this has turned out to be a very 
lopsided dialogue. :)
--

Regards,


                      -rwr


"Around computers it is difficult to find the correct unit of time to 
measure progress. Some cathedrals took a century to complete. Can you 
imagine the grandeur and scope of a program that would take as long?"
		- Unknown

Got Blog?