RE: [ga] Consensus Policy Process

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>]

OK, its early.... 

I value your "opinions", not "onions."  Sometimes, spell checker can be a
detriment :)

-----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff 
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 8:20 AM
To: 'DannyYounger@cs.com'; mcade@att.com
Cc: ga@dnso.org; bbeckwith@verisign.com
Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus Policy Process


Danny,

Thanks for pointing this out.  Just to let you know, we are on top of the
requirements for this to be a "consensus policy."  Before we can document
what is required, we need to finish and finalize the substance of the actual
recommendations.  Only then can we document the total outreach, the extent
of disagreement amongst impacted groups, etc. as you have mentioned.

With respect to the timeline, I will leave that answer to our Chairman, but
I encourage you to voice your onions on the call today.

Thanks. 

-----Original Message-----
From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 1:18 AM
To: mcade@att.com
Cc: ga@dnso.org; bbeckwith@verisign.com
Subject: [ga] Consensus Policy Process


Marilyn,

In order to achieve a "consensus policy", one of the obligations is to 
provide a written report and supporting materials (which must include all 
substantive submissions to the Supporting Organization relating to the 
proposal) that (i) documents the extent of agreement and disagreement among 
impacted groups, (ii) documents the outreach process used to seek to achieve

adequate representation of the views of groups that are likely to be 
impacted, and (iii) documents the nature and intensity of reasoned support 
and opposition to the proposed specification or policy.

In view of the fact that Network Solutions, Namesecure.com, BB Online UK
Ltd. 
and Registrars.com voted against the previous iteration of the draft last 
October, it would be reasonable to assume that they might still consider 
themselves to be "impacted groups".  My questions:

1.  Has the Task Force documented the extent of disagreement, if any, 
expressed by these parties?  If not, when do you intend to get this 
accomplished?
2.  What outreach process will the Task Force be using to achieve adequate 
representation of the views of these groups?  Have any of these parties 
participated in the drafting of the current set of proposals?  If not, why 
were they excluded?
3.  What outreach process will the Task Force be using to achieve adequate 
representation of the views of registrants?  I would think that two-day 
advance notice of an open teleconference only posted by the DNSO
Secretariat, 
and not on the ICANN site itself, hardly constitutes an outreach that 
achieves "adequate representation".  What do you consider to be an
"adequate" 
amount of representation?
4.  How does the TF intend to document the nature and intensity of the 
opposition of these registrars, if any, to the proposed policy?  Has the TF 
formally asked any of these folks for their opinions as yet?  If not, when
do 
you plan to do so?  How much time will be allotted for these parties to 
provide a response?  
5.  Your terms of reference require you to develop broad understanding
across 
the NC of the issues underlying the
disputed area of transfers of domain names between registrars -- where are 
each of those issues listed, identified and analyzed?
6.  Your terms of reference also require the TF to identify any broad policy

issues (separate from contract issues), which
are the responsibility of the DNSO -- where are those broad policy issues 
articulated within the current documents?
7.  Will you ever honor the bylaws and post a timeline for this TF?



--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html