RE: [registrars] SiteFinder Ballot

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

Ross:

This is my last post on this matter but I just wanted to make three final
points.

Point #1
I agree 100% with Bruce Tonkin's last post on the subject matter with regard
to documenting the registrars support of the SiteFinder motion.

Point #2
I have been an advocate of the one registrar vote regardless of size since
May 1999. However, my grandmother always use to say to me those that fail to
learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Last year while trying to
mobilize support for ICANN evolution and reform, a certain company attempted
to undermine the tremendous support demonstrated by the registrar community.
That company pointed out the small percentage of registrars that actually
participated in the constituency (I still have the news article archived
somewhere) and pointed out the small number of registrations that some
registrars had under management. In a follow-up letter to the Department of
Commerce I listed the number of registrars and their respective market
share. I also pointed out that some of the registrars had smaller numbers
because they either provided value-added services or where resellers using
other registrars systems. So my point is, the current leadership of this
constituency can either learn from my previous experience for maximizing the
voice of registrars or it can learn for itself. As an engineer, I hate to
reinvent the wheel.

Point #3
Since ICANN's Evolution and Reform, I have advocated unsuccessfully in DC
and during the by-law reform process, to allow every ICANN accredited
registrar a vote within the constituency - even more democratic I would
argue than the current process where the one vote per registrar is
conditioned on those that have to pay several hundred dollars per year for
that privilege. I believe that being an ICANN accredited registrar provides
that registrar a "fundamental right" to vote on matters that impact their
business, and that fundamental right can no longer be conditioned on what
amounts to a poll-tax. The fact that the constituency no longer has to pay
for representation within the GNSO Names Council (approx $15,000) eliminates
the previous justification that the constituency had for charging for the
right to vote.

Best regards,

Mike

P.S. With regard to the anticipated posts about the cost of membership being
only a fraction of the cost of attending an ICANN regional meeting, I would
like to point out that there are some accredited registrars that have never
been to a regional meeting. However, that registrars still pays a minimum of
over $4,000 a year to ICANN as an accredited registrar, and that contractual
relationship I submit empowers every registrar with the right to have their
voice heard within the ICANN process.





> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 6:30 AM
> To: Michael D. Palage
> Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx; Paul Twomey
> Subject: Re: [registrars] SiteFinder Ballot
>
>
> On 10/1/2003 10:14 PM Michael D. Palage noted that:
>
> >  what Option would give you the highest level of confidence in
> > assessing the consensus of the registrars constituency.
>
> As long as we are discussing the consensus of the constituency
> membership, then we should provide as much information as we possibly
> can. This might appear to be a subtle point, but it really goes to the
> heart of what makes us a constituency. In the past (and certainly not
> coming from you) when the vote didn't support someone's agenda, it was
> quickly claimed that it was non-representative because it didn't include
> a majority of market share or a majority of *all* registrars. We have
> never claimed to represent a majority of all registrars and market share
> based determinations can't adequately demonstrate the broad range of
> interests of our members. To be blunt, these tactics have been typically
> used to mute our voice within the process.
>
> We explicitly codify "one member, one vote" in our bylaws - I would
> strongly urge us to continue to uphold this principle. Bruce has made a
> suggestion that furthers this goal, as have others offlist. I'm happy
> with any of the options as long as it doesn't place a higher value on
> Register.com's or Tucows' vote than it does on 007Names' or Domainbank's
> solely because of market share considerations - we all have an
> equal voice.
>
> Thanks for the followup.
>
> --
>
>
>                         -rwr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>