[nc-transfer] Re: Final draft of Terms of Reference and participant recommendations for TF

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

Marilyn,

Apologies for the short delay in returning these comments to the TF.
Consultation with the constituency is, as you realize, of utmost importance.
I trust that the liberty that I have taken with your time frames doesn't
pose any inconvenience to you or the TF.

> Please take this final opportunity to review and provide your comments on
> the ToR.  This document will close for comment on Friday, December 7,
2001,
> COB, whatever time zone you are in.  I know, this is very short turn
around.
> But please try to respond in that time frame.  We do need to proceed with
> work. IF you haven't named a representative, you can still provide
comments
> on the ToR, and I would urge you to do so.  Since all representatives to
the
> NC have been on the list to date, all constituencies have had ample
> opportunity to comment on the ToR.

The Registrar Constituency supports this draft with the following comments;

 - While possibly a matter of semantics, there is concern that the language
of the TOR does not adequately parallel that found in the relevant
agreements. For instance, domain names are not transferred between
registrars, but rather, sponsorship of these names in the registry is
transferred between registrars. Further, the term "registrant" is not
contemplated as a defined term by any of the agreements. While, these are
small points, the TF should consider creating some standardized definitions
by which we conduct our work. Such a document will eliminate confusion
through the process and in assisting the interpretation of our policy
recommendations into contractual amendments when/if our work is blessed by
the BoD.

 - We are concerned with the lack of concrete deadlines in the TOR. While
rough guidelines are presented in the document, hard dates would provide a
much clearer definition of expectation to the task force participants and
affected stakeholders. The Registrar Constituency amendments to the TOR
contemplate specific dates that we would like to see the TF atorn to. As
these dates were chosen rather arbitrarily in a bid to engender discussion
on the point, perhaps a quick discussion will demonstrate whether or not
these, or other, dates can be quickly determined and included in the TOR.

> Each Constituency, AND the GA, will name one OR two representatives to the
> TF [their choice and their decision of whom they provide should be guided
by
> their internal requirements to make those selections].   Each entity
> (whether constituency or GA) will chose its one or two representatives, is
> responsible for the decision making within, and will have only one vote in
> any TF issues where voting is involved.
>
> Should the TF accept this recommendation, each constituency and the GA
will
> have one week to name their second participant, should they decide to
> exercise that option. It is possible that some constituencies will
continue
> to have one representative to the TF itself. IF they cannot make that
> selection within a week, they should notify the chair of their intent to
> name a second person, and give a date certain by which they can name that
> person.

- The registrar constituency accepts this proposal on the condition that
each of the constituencies can make their selection within the timeframes
you propose. We are deeply concerned that there are constituencies that have
not named one representative to date. We hope that this proposal will
provide these constituencies with the flexibility that they require to
fulfill their obligations to this task force. If this is not the case, the
Task Force must not let further delays in naming appointments to the TF also
delay the work that we have at hand.

For the record, the Registrar Constituency will not be appointing a second
representative to the TF at this time but may do so in the future in
accordance with the proposal above. Our timeframe for this is indefinite and
will not impact the progress or direction of the TF in any way.

Thank you to everyone for their effort thus far. The Registrar Constituency
looks forward to resolving this matter as expediently and fairly as
possible.

Thanks,

-rwr

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>
To: "'Ross Wm. Rader'" <ross@tucows.com>; <nc-transfer@dnso.org>; "'Mark
McFadden'" <mcf@uwm.edu>; "'Nick Wood'" <nwood@netsearchers.co.uk>
Cc: "'Philip Sheppard'" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>; "'Glen'"
<gcore@wanadoo.fr>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 10:52 PM
Subject: Final draft of Terms of Reference and participant recommendations
for TF


> I acknowledge that I am a day late in posting a response, and apologize. I
> have been trying to gather and analyze the views of those of you who have
> commented.
>
> First, the terms of reference draft.
>
> Special thanks to several of you:
> Ross Rader for gathering and reflecting Registrar input; Danny Younger for
> his comments in his role of GA chair; Milton Mueller on behalf of the
> non-commercial constituency and to a few others who sent general comments.
> I have attempted to synthesize all comments against the original draft of
> ToR.  A final DRAFT version is attached.  Some of you have not provided
> comments.
>
> Please take this final opportunity to review and provide your comments on
> the ToR.  This document will close for comment on Friday, December 7,
2001,
> COB, whatever time zone you are in.  I know, this is very short turn
around.
> But please try to respond in that time frame.  We do need to proceed with
> work. IF you haven't named a representative, you can still provide
comments
> on the ToR, and I would urge you to do so.  Since all representatives to
the
> NC have been on the list to date, all constituencies have had ample
> opportunity to comment on the ToR.
>
> AGAIN, IF YOU CAN, PLEASE RETURN YOUR COMMENTS WITH EDIT COMMENTS
INCLUDED.
>
> Secondly, membership in the TF and participation in its activities:
>
> I had previously tried to encourage one individual/one constituency.  Some
> of you have reminded me that while that is the "norm", exceptions have
been
> made for other TF's.  All useful input and I appreciate hearing from each
of
> you on these issues.
>
> A few members have expressed very divergent views; others have been
> satisfied with one member per....  I have received the following feedback:
>
> One constituency feels that they must have three separate participants.
> Several are satisfied with one participant.
> The GA has sought to have two participants and raised the issue of
ensuring
> representation for registrants.
>
> I am proposing to the TF the following, which I seek your support for:
>
> Each Constituency, AND the GA, will name one OR two representatives to the
> TF [their choice and their decision of whom they provide should be guided
by
> their internal requirements to make those selections].   Each entity
> (whether constituency or GA) will chose its one or two representatives, is
> responsible for the decision making within, and will have only one vote in
> any TF issues where voting is involved.
>
> Should the TF accept this recommendation, each constituency and the GA
will
> have one week to name their second participant, should they decide to
> exercise that option. It is possible that some constituencies will
continue
> to have one representative to the TF itself. IF they cannot make that
> selection within a week, they should notify the chair of their intent to
> name a second person, and give a date certain by which they can name that
> person.
>
> For those meetings/briefings which are of general information in nature,
> [the TF will determine any such briefings/calls based on the work to be
> done], open meetings/conference calls can be hosted so that each entity
can
> invite their members to attend. Since these meetings/conference calls will
> not be decisional in nature, all participants are welcomed to fully
> participate. To date, one such call was held.
>
> Input from registrants will be one work project of the TF, and will at a
> minimum include a conference call briefing from a broad set of
> representative registrants as well as other input provided by TF
> participants, and may, should the TF agree, include other mechanisms to
take
> input from a broad set of registrants.  This will allow broad input from a
> diverse set of registrants; the chair recommends that each constituency
and
> the GA be asked by the TF to provide participants in this process.  This
> provides an additional opportunity to constituencies who have registrants,
> and to the GA who has a number of registrants, to participate actively in
> this process.
>
> Reminder about election of chair:  Once the members are finalized to the
TF,
> we will hold an election for the chair.
>
> The members to the TF who are named to date are:
>
> Marilyn Cade, BC and Interim Chair
> Nick Wood, IPC
> Mark McFadden, ISPCP
> Ross Rader, Registrar Constituency
> Danny Younger, GA
> Milton Mueller, Non-commercial Constituency
> ______________, Registry Constituency *
> ______________, ccTLD Constituency **
>
> *The Registry Constituency has informed me that they need three
> representatives.  As interim chair, my recommendation is that this
> constituency, like others, accept having one or two representatives, with
> one vote. All constituencies have great diversity and are trying to
balance
> that with the need to have an effective and productive process for the TF.
>
> **The ccTLD Constituency still has to name their representative.
>
> Process for providing comments:
>
> 1) Please provide comments on the ToR. Due Friday, Dec. 7, 2001. COB.
>
> 2) Review proposed changes in representation on the TF
>
> 3) Check your schedule for an upcoming TF conference call to be scheduled
> for next week.  I have previously suggested bi-weekly calls at 7:30 a.m.
EST
> in U.S. Please comment on whether that time works for you. This will be an
> extremely challenging time for any colleagues in Asia Pacific.  I am open
to
> other time suggestions, once we finalize the list of members but want to
be
> sensitive to the challenges of different time zones.
>
> 4) Folks, HEADS UP:  I plan to ask the Secretariat to edit the listserv in
> the next few days so that the core listserv is limited to those who are
> named to the TF. IF your constituency can't name someone by Friday, Dec.
7,
> please let me know, and we will arrange a designee until you complete your
> appointment process. IF the TF approves the change to up to 2
participants,
> those folks will be added as they are named.
>
> Regards, Marilyn Cade
>
>