Re: [nc-transfer] TF Problems might be helped by a better ToR

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net>]

milton...

i tried reach guillermo yesterday and circuits were busy

if we could incorporate into the document language  insuring that the new
mgt. company will not impose any onerous accreditation fees or "new
financial barriers"  and will honor the ICANN accredited status of the
existing registrars this would be a very good start.

i also feel that it is essential that an acknowledgement be made that all
parties recognize the need for registrar constituency input into this part
of the transition process as we are significantly impacted by it.

does anyone have any problems with these concepts and incorporating them .
if you all don't then please incorporate at least the first paragraph into
the document. registrars can send in a note regarding the second paragraph
to the council seperately but the language in the first paragraph is very
important to our constituancy.

ken stubbs




----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>
To: <nc-transfer@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 11:59 PM
Subject: [nc-transfer] TF Problems might be helped by a better ToR


> We have two disputes running on this list.
> One concerns the exchange of messages between
> Verisign GRS and Tucows regarding transfer
> practices, a subject which is clearly central
> to the task of this TF. The other is a debate over
> representation on the Task Force.
>
> The two discussions are related, because both
> VerisignGRS and Tucows are claiming to speak for
> the interests of registrants.
>
> The problem is complicated by the need for fairly
> rapid action. As I understand the problem that gave
> rise to this TF, it is one that requires quick
> resolution. If Tucows is right then hundreds, perhaps
> thousands of customers are being deliberately
> frustrated every month. If Verisign is right then
> by their own statements current practices permit a
> significant number of customers to be slammed.
>
> Given this need, a debate over procedural issues
> and a reconstruction of the TF, while clearly
> justified, could contribute to the problem at
> least in the short term.
>
> I am wondering whether the problem might be
> addressed by redefining the Terms of Reference.
>
> Is it possible to separate the TF work into two
> steps?
>
> Step one: resolve in a definitive and quick way
> which of the conflicting interpretations of Exhibit
> B of the Registry-Registrar Agreement is DNSO
> policy and specifically identify which practices
> of Verisign, if any, are out of line.
>
> Step two: identify the broader issues and more
> far-reaching changes that might need to be made
> in the transfer process. As part of this step,
> we broaden the composition of the TF to include
> a better means of representing end users and
> of ascertaining what is in their best interests.
>
> --MM
>
>