Re: [council] Agenda for the NC telecon July 27th is on the website

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@dninet.net>]

thank you for your gesture ted...
i too would very much appreciate a delay in this vote and am assuming that
this will be the case as i will be on a plane enroute to the wipo meeting.

i would also like to recommend a minor change in the proposal to reflect the
following:
the same desired objective  can be easily be achieved, without
restricting the portability of names, by simply providing that once a
dispute policy is invoked any transferee registrar will abide by the
result of that invocation?

this could easlily be included in the uniform rdp clause placed into the
ICANN accreditation contract in the future and would bound all ICANN
accrediterd registrars.

ken stubbs


-----Original Message-----
From: Shapiro, Ted <Ted_Shapiro@mpaa.org>
To: 'Richard Lindsay' <richard@interq.ad.jp>; council@dnso.org
<council@dnso.org>
Cc: Elisabeth PORTENEUVE <Elisabeth.PORTENEUVE@cetp.ipsl.fr>
Date: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 5:29 AM
Subject: RE: [council] Agenda for the NC telecon July 27th is on the website


>Dear Richard and All,
>
>I have no problem with your request that the vote be postponed until the
>next teleconference. I understand that Ken Stubbs and possibly others won't
>be available either. I propose that anyone with comments on the
>Report/Amended Proposal submit them in advance of the next teleconference.
>Unless there are others who disagree, this item can be taken off today's
>agenda and placed on the agenda of the next teleconference.
>
>BR, TED
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Richard Lindsay [mailto:richard@interq.ad.jp]
>Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 9:12 AM
>To: council@dnso.org
>Cc: Elisabeth PORTENEUVE
>Subject: Re: [council] Agenda for the NC telecon July 27th is on the
>website
>
>
>*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
>With regard to agenda item 3, since I will not be still in
>the meeting by the time the vote is taken, I wanted to state
>that while I fully support the intent of Ted's proposal,
>I do not believe the registrar constituency (ie the ones
>directly affected by the proposal) have had sufficient time
>to examine the document, since it has been updated.
>
>I would prefer that the vote on this particular issue be postponed
>by one teleconference.  Further, the outcome of the WIPO Meeting
>this morning (DC time) may impact this document.  I imagine other
>pNC members will be at this meeting, as well...
>
>Regards,
>Richard
>
>Elisabeth PORTENEUVE wrote:
>>
>> The agenda for the NC teleconference July 27th in on the website,
>> item:
>>     Calendar of DNSO Events, notes from meetings, documents
>> Also under "New this week".
>> The URL is:
>>     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990727.NCtelecon-agenda.html
>>
>> Text of published agenda follows.
>> This info will be immediately sent to the ga and announce list.
>> Elisabeth
>>
>> --
>> ICANN/DNSO
>> Names Council Teleconference on July 27th, 1999 - agenda
>>
>> June 25, 1999. </p>
>>
>> The Names Council teleconference will be held on July 27th,
>> 9:30 - 11:30 Eastern US / 15:30 - 17:30 Central European
>>
>> The agenda for the teleconference is:
>>
>> 1. Approval of the agenda.
>> 2. Reports from developments in working groups B and C and Committee D.
>> 3. Discussion and vote on Ted Shapiro's proposal.
>>
>>      see http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990714.registrar.html
>>      Propo sal of model protocol for registrar to registrar handling
>>      of requests by a domain name holder to change registrars
>>      upon notice of a possible claim.
>>
>> 4. Discussion of the report on Dispute Resolution Policy.
>>
>>      see http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990726.NSIdmtrdraft2.html
>>      Report tracing the development of the domain name transfer
>>      issue and a proposed amendment to the model protocol presented
>>      at the last pNC teleconference (12 July 1999).
>>
>> 5. Discussion on the webcasting for the Santiago meeting, and how
>>    to proceed on addressing the cost issue for the DNSO/Santiago
meetings.
>>
>>      Some suggestions/comments have been received, and from those
>>      that were useful and constructive we can discuss best
>>      steps to proceed. While in the long-term this is an issue
>>      Committee D will need to include in it's work, until
>>      this work is completed it's something we'll need to address
>>      more on a 'meeting' by 'meeting' basis.
>