RE: [registrars] SiteFinder Ballot

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

Ross,

I didn't say there was a violation of the by-laws. What I did say was that
73% of X is of limited value when you don't know what X is. As I said to
maximize the value of the vote I think it would be good to know those
registrars that compose the universe of X.

Let me ask you this question. If you had to make a decision as a Board
member what Option would give you the highest level of confidence in
assessing the consensus of the registrars constituency.

Option A - 73% of the registrars supported the motion, and some of those
registrars supporting it included TUCOWS, Register.com, GoDaddy, eNom,
BulkRegister, and Schlund.

Option B - 73% of the registrars supported the motion, however the following
registrars did not vote TUCOWS, Register.com, GoDaddy, eNom, BulkRegister,
and Schlund.

Option C - 73% of the registrars supported the motion, but there is no idea
of how TUCOWS, Register.com, GoDaddy, eNom, BulkRegister, and Schlund voted.

Option D - 73% of the registrars supported the motion, with a list of actual
registrars that voted in favor of the motion.

Mike




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 9:51 PM
> To: Michael D. Palage
> Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx; Paul Twomey
> Subject: Re: [registrars] SiteFinder Ballot
>
>
> 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?
>