Re: [ga] Ignoring the Rules

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

Jeff,

If the process was followed by members of the TF, then I wouldn't have to 
revert to arguing about process.  As I see it, the members of the TF have 
looked at one proposal only.  They have not even bothered to discuss the VGRS 
Interim Transfer Policy Proposal posted at 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/doc00119.doc nor have they 
bothered to examine operative models within the ccTLD community that deal 
with transfers (such as the auDA published policy on transfers at 
http://www.auda.org.au/docs/auda-2002-08.txt which was brought to the 
attention of the registrar community by the Chair of the Names Council).  
There are also new proposals on the table such as the one put forth by Elliot 
Noss at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/doc00128.doc.  How 
then can you write "TO BE HONEST, THERE WERE NO OTHER PROPOSALS THAT WERE 
RECEIVED"...  

Further, how much feedback do you expect when the language in your Interim 
proposal is as clear as mud to most registrants?  As David Safran wrote:  "I 
am increasingly finding it hard to decide how my constituency should stand on 
the proposals since more and more of the discussions are focusing on factors 
which seem to me to be primarily within the knowledge base of the registrars 
and registries, and appear to be directed to mechanics not policy."  You 
state regarding "a clear statement of what is being proposed and its 
underlying rationale" --THIS IS IN THE REPORT ITSELF -- I defy you to present 
to us that clear statement.  In the entirety of your document, I have yet to 
find a single phrase, sentance, or paragraph that explicitly states what the 
proposed policy is in language that a layman can understand.  

How are we to provide you with substantive comments on "the costs and risks, 
if any, of implementing the proposal and how they would be borne" when you 
haven't given us anything to work with?  The Dispute Resolution provisions -- 
we have no idea if you're talking about a $1500 fee or a $30 assessment 
because you haven't provided any commentary on this topic.  

More comments will follow later this evening...


 
--
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