RE: [ga] Policy on Introduction of Registry Services

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

Danny,

The ICANN Board Resolution with respect to the WLS stated:

Resolved [02.53] that the Board requests the Names Council to coordinate
within the DNSO a comprehensive review of issues concerning the deletion of
domain names and possible solutions for those issues and to submit to the
Board, no later than 10 June 2002, a status report on that review, with the
status report to include any recommendations (with supporting materials)
concerning VeriSign's request to modify the .com and .net agreements to
allow it to provide a wait-listing service, for a fee, as part of its
operation of the .com and .net registries;

Resolved [02.54] that the Secretary is directed to advise the Address and
Protocol Councils of VeriSign's request and the Board's intent to consider
that request at its Bucharest meeting on 28 June 2002, with an invitation to
those councils to submit comments (if any) on the request before that time; 

Resolved [02.55] that the Board invites public comments on VeriSign's
request and directs that a suitable mechanism be established for allowing
comments to be submitted over the Internet to ICANN for at least a
thirty-day period; and

Resolved [02.56] that the Board invites comments on VeriSign's request at
the Public Comment Forum to be held on 27 June 2002 in Bucharest, Romania.

It was followed with another bd resolution in Bucharest stating:

Resolved [02.84] that the Names Council is requested to provide, no later
than 26 July 2002, its final recommendations, with its supporting rationale
and any separate positions of DNSO constituencies, on the VeriSign WLS
request (including the modifications made on 27 June 2002), so that the
Board may act shortly thereafter.

Nowhere in any of these resolutions was the DNSO (especially the Transfers
Task Force) given authority to look at the issue you have referenced.
Please let us on the Transfer Task Force do our job with respect to
"Transfers" and not waste its time on matters that (1) Are not within the
scope of the Task Force's Terms of Reference and (2) may be beyond the scope
of the ICANN "policy process" in general.   

Being side tracked on other unrelated issues takes away valuable time from
considering the issues that you have complained constantly about us taking
too much time to look at in the first place.

Thank you.


Jeff Neuman




-----Original Message-----
From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 5:59 AM
To: ga@dnso.org
Cc: mcade@att.com
Subject: [ga] Policy on Introduction of Registry Services


Marilyn,

Our General Counsel in his preliminary analysis on WLS noted that:  "ICANN 
has not yet developed a well-defined procedure for considering requests by 
registry operators to amend Appendix G to allow charging for an additional 
registry service. Because action on VGRS's proposal may serve as a model for

future actions, it is important to carefully consider the process that
should 
be followed."  

As Chair of the Transfers Task Force that handled the WLS matter, can you 
comment on the "procedure" that the task force has recommended to govern the

future introduction of registry services by VeriSign and other registries?
I 
have not been able to find any such specific policy recommendation regarding

future introductions of registry services in the TF report.  Did I miss it 
somewhere?  Wasn't it part of the Task Force's job to consider such policy 
matters?
--
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@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