RE: [council] Revised WLS Proposal (fwd)

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Just recently, the BC members have begun to raise concerns about the subject
of "deletes" as a policy matter, and how the Versign Wait Listing Service
relates.  We have just received requests/endorsement from the BC to raise
this topic at the upcoming NC meeting. 

We hereby ask the Secretariat/chair of the NC to note that we ask to have
this topic: "deletes/various approaches" on the NC agenda for the next
meeting. 

One question to Cary: 
Cary, I note that you are forwarding a Verisign document to the NC regarding
a registry (Verisign) proposal to the Registrars. I seek clarification of
this action. Is the gTLD Constituency supporting or endorsing in some way
this proposal from one of the registries who are involved in your
constituency?    Perhaps this is an informational only posting? IF so,
should questions be addressed to the gTLD registry constituency, or to
Verisign itself? 

At this point, the view of the BC is evolving, but the members seem to
believe that users of domain names are significantly affected by any changes
in practices/policies related to deleting domain names, and believe that
they should be engaged in any changes. 





 
-----Original Message-----
From: Cary Karp [mailto:ck@nic.museum]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 3:32 PM
To: council@dnso.org
Subject: [council] Revised WLS Proposal (fwd)


Forwarded at the request of Chuck Gomes

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 11:45:55 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
To: Cary Karp <ck@nic.museum>
Subject: Revised WLS Proposal

I have attached two documents related to the wait listing service
proposal submitted by VGRS to the Registrars Constituency on
December 30, 2001: (1) a revised proposal based on feedback received
from registrars and other interested parties; (2) a document titled,
'Justification for a Registry-based Wait Listing Service.' I would
like to call your attention to the recommended procedures and
guidelines for questions and feedback that are contained toward the
beginning of the revised proposal. I would also like to note that
the second document contains responses to the four points made by
the Registrars Constituency in the official feedback provided to the
initial proposal. It also contains responses to some of the other
major issues raised with regard to the proposed service.

Chuck Gomes
Vice President, Policy & Compliance
VeriSign Global Registry Services