Re: [ga] Report on the NC Transfers Task Force activities

[Bret Fausett <baf@fausett.com>]

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> Whereas Verisign appears concerned that domain name holders may not be
> adequately represented in these discussions, if there is an organization that
> represents such interests that would like to forward a representative to this
> task force, please let me know and I will bring such interest to the
> attention of the Interim Chair.

And Verisign is correct. This current task force may be on a "fast-track,"
but it's a track that leads straight into a brick wall.

The Task Force should consider whether the current path can possibly produce
a "consensus policy" as defined in the registrar accreditation contracts. If
not, then whatever result this task force reaches will not be binding on
Verisign. Under the definition of a consensus policy, the onus is not on
domain name holders to come forward but on the group that is promoting a new
policy to do outreach to them and solicit their views.

In a cover letter to the Working Group D report and in follow-up questions
to the NC, the importance of creating a process that will produce binding
"consensus policies" was explained. So don't blame Verisign when it refuses
to abide by the "new policy" that results from this closed Task Force. It
will be well within its rights, and the NC will have ignored advice about
how to produce a successful consensus policy.

      -- Bret

--
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