All,
Please sexcuse my leaving out this in my last response to this
post...
==========
INEGroup has finnished a survey that spanned some 10K domain
name holders regarding a Pre-Payment registration policy for
Domain Names for now an in the future. See Results below:
Potential size of survey (Multipul mailing lists: 10,285
Survey responses
( all domein name holders excluding duplicates): 8,228
Percentage of sample submitting responses: 80%
In favor of prepayment: 22.3% of respondents
Not in favor of prepayment: 72.2% of respondents
No Opinion: 6.5% of respondents
1. IF YOU RESPOND "NO", what payment policy would you suggest:
[ 3125 ] Current InterNIC policy is okay
[ 485 ] 7 days to pay or name returns to available pool
[ 2005 ] 30 days to pay or name returns to available pool
[ 2304 ] 60 days days to pay or name returns to available pool
[ 196] 90 days days to pay or name returns to available pool
[ 110 ] Forget payment. The names are part of the public trust
and should to be free
[ 0 ] All checks made out to the personal account of
[your name here]
[ 4140 ] Other option (To include electronic transfer via
Internet)
==================
Ellen Rony wrote:
> Jonathan Zittrain wrote:
> >> Is there any way, architecturally, to do
> >> better for discussion of the issues than what we have now?
>
> Eric Weisberg wrote:
> >
> >Yes, if our purpose is to arrive at conclusions and take action.
> >If that were the case, we would have to elect a moderator and take
> >votes.
>
> I prefer the approach of taking a poll, not a vote, since the subscriber
> list is not the same as an ICANN membership. Polls are informal, non
> binding, and speedy. They can be used to guage the subscriber sentiment on
> an issue. For example, I just ran a poll on the domain policy list (405
> members) asking whether or not InterNIC should charge for domain name
> registration at the time the application for a name is submitted. The poll
> had 11.4% response rate, running more than 2 to 1 in favor of prepayment.
> (See http://www.domainhandbook.com/poll-0199.html for specific stats.)
>
> I think the Berkman Center would have an appropriate role as the poll
> taker, and people should be allowed to respond to the list or privately. I
> believe polls attract a higher response rate when they are made available
> through mailing lists than when we are obligated to go to a website and
> sign on. It's akin to a detour in our cybertravel.
>
> So my recommendation is to come up with occasional questions and put them
> out for response. In the poll mentioned above, I deleted all duplicates
> and made no attempt to verify votes since the weight of the DNS world
> didn't rely on the outcome. Polls can be concatenated with other
> identical polls on other lists (so long as respondents aren't allowed to
> respond more than once to the same question).
>
> If you like the polling idea, my first two question would be:
>
> SHOULD ICANN HOLD BOARD MEETINGS THAT ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC?
>
> [ ] YES
> [ ] NO
>
> SHOULD THE SOs BE REQUIRED TO INCORPORATE?
>
> [ ] YES
> [ ] NO
>
> Ellen Rony Co-author
> The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com
> ================================ // ===================================
> ISBN 0879305150 *=" ____ / +1 (415) 435-5010
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ ) Tiburon, CA
> // \\ "Carpe canine"
>
>
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
