Re: [nc-transfer] Action requested on Vany's proposal

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

Danny,

Let me address your statements in reverse.

First...

> Further, let me suggest that if you intend put to our interim chair a
formal
> objection to the consideration of a motion designed to bring registrant
> representatives into this group that you martial your arguments as to why
> registrant representation and participation should be denied.

The formal objection is already on the floor, I won't be retracting it - now
let me explain why its there in the first place. I have no objection to
ensuring that our work is structured in a manner that accounts for and
considers the viewpoints of all affected stakeholders. I do object, on
procedural grounds, to this discussion occurring here as part of the formal
work of the task force. The TF is a construct resulting from a resolution
passed by the Names Council. If this construct is to be modified, it must
happen within the Names Council. If a discussion of the modification is to
occur, it must necessarily happen in almost any other forum but here.

> I am sorry to hear that you consider the fight for the representational
> rights of registrants to be a distraction.  Those of us in the GA do not.

The "fight" is completely out of scope for discussion within this task
force. Again, it must necessarily occur elsewhere to be effective.

> That the Chair of this group is aware of these procedures and definitions
and
> has made absolutely no effort to properly provide for registrant
> participation, even though VeriSign put this issue on the table by noting
> that our three-legged stool (registries/registrars/registrants) is missing
> its third leg is indicative of the fact that this Chair, for her own
reasons,
> will not act in a neutral capacity.

Completely off-base. The task force has not even been fully appointed yet,
nor has the terms of reference been accepted. It is up to us to define what
the work this TF must undertake, who must be consulted and how they must be
consulted - none of this falls on Marilyn's shoulders. Implying that she is
acting inappropriately before she has had a chance to act is simply unfair.

> I am looking to ensure that registrants are included in this process and
have
> already specified a framework by which we can undertake a consultation in
an
> orderly manner -- the framework is the Open Working Group which would
allow
> for full registrant representation and which accords with the Rules of
> Procedures for the NC.

I can only assume that the NC considered which of the working structures
would most appropriately facilitate the work at hand. I can't say this for
sure however as I wasn't there, nor have I asked the question. The fact
remains that the task force is the construct that was chosen and unless the
NC changes the working structure mid-stream, it is a structure that we will
have to live with. Again, this is an issue that must be brought before the
Names Council for discussion if the GA feels that the TF is an inappropriate
structure.

It is simply not appropriate however to continue this discussion here.

Hence my objection.

Can we get back to the terms of reference now?

-rwr

----- Original Message -----
From: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
To: <nc-transfer@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 7:25 PM
Subject: [nc-transfer] Action requested on Vany's proposal


> Ross,
>
> I am looking to ensure that registrants are included in this process and
have
> already specified a framework by which we can undertake a consultation in
an
> orderly manner -- the framework is the Open Working Group which would
allow
> for full registrant representation and which accords with the Rules of
> Procedures for the NC.
>
> That the Chair of this group is aware of these procedures and definitions
and
> has made absolutely no effort to properly provide for registrant
> participation, even though VeriSign put this issue on the table by noting
> that our three-legged stool (registries/registrars/registrants) is missing
> its third leg is indicative of the fact that this Chair, for her own
reasons,
> will not act in a neutral capacity.
>
> I am sorry to hear that you consider the fight for the representational
> rights of registrants to be a distraction.  Those of us in the GA do not.
>
> Further, let me suggest that if you intend put to our interim chair a
formal
> objection to the consideration of a motion designed to bring registrant
> representatives into this group that you martial your arguments as to why
> registrant representation and participation should be denied.