Clarification requested from NSI (Was "Re: [nc-transfer] Transfer Task Force Consultation Calls Schedule")

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

Chuck,

A quick question pertaining to some of the contents of your slide
presentation.

One of the slides states that Network Solutions received a "Request by
Registrars Constituency for a WLS proposal ". Can you please clarify this? I
was under the impression the your firm received a request from Constituency
for a proposal that dealt with the "CNO Batch Delete Process". As you and
your firm has stated many times, the WLS proposal was never intended to
solve the batch delete issue, but that it might help out in some incidental
way. As such, it would be inappropriate for your firm to characterize the
registrar constituency request as being in any way related to the "WLS
proposal". (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01504.html)

Also, for some background prior to the call, can you please provide the TF
(or perhaps this is something that you can do on the call today and
tomorrow) with some background concerning your outreach efforts to the
registrar community? The polling numbers that you present are rather stark,
and as we have discussed in the past, there is a tremendous difference
between the registrar community and the registrar constituency.

Further to this point, (making a distinction between the registrar community
and the registrar constituency) where did these polling numbers come from?
The historical record paints a vastly different picture from a constituency
perspective - mainly that constituency support for the constituency position
sits at roughly 68%, opposition @ 24% (abstentions making up the rest).
Further details can be found at
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02193.html

As this is a DNSO call, it would be useful to stick to the constituency
details, however knowing more about your outreach efforts and the source of
your numbers would be useful in assisting us to make some informed
judgements concerning the value of the statistics that you present in the
proposal.

Thanks in advance for any clarification that you can provide.

-rwr


----- Original Message -----
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>
To: "Juliano,Marie M - LGA" <mjuliano@att.com>; "Roger Cochetti (E-mail)"
<rogerc@netsol.com>; "Louis Touton (E-mail)" <touton@icann.org>; "Dan
Halloran (E-mail)" <halloran@icann.org>; "Thomas Roessler (E-mail)"
<roessler@does-not-exist.org>; "Alexander Svensson (E-mail)"
<Alexander@svensson.de>; "Chuck Gomes (E-mail)" <cgomes@verisign.com>;
"Transfer TF (E-mail)" <nc-transfer@dnso.org>
Cc: "Glen (E-mail)" <gcore@wanadoo.fr>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 8:31 PM
Subject: FW: [nc-transfer] Transfer Task Force Consultation Calls Schedule


Reminder about tomorrow's call on WLS was sent out by Marie Juliano earlier
today.

I invited presentations from those signing up or invited to make
presentations.

Attached is a presentation from Verisign, Registry. Thanks, Chuck, for your
efforts to rearrange your schedule and for the presentation you provided.
This post will cover the TF members, GA chair, alt. chair, ICANN staff.
Marie will post to anyone who RSVP'd who isn't on the Transfer TF list. I've
posted to the Transfer TF list, so that anyone dialing in late, can retrieve
this from the "Transfer List".

So far, I've seen 3-4 folks sign up for the scheduled slots.

I plan to follow the following schedule:

Introductions/identification of participants by name and affiliation
[company, etc., whether you represent a constituency or a member of the GA,
other}.
Brief statement of the Chair about process and purpose
Overview by Dan Halloran of the Board resolution, Staff paper, process for
comment
Verisign Registry Presentation [questions to follow]
Rick Wesson, Registrars Constituency
...(others who have requested slots)
,.....(Other participant comments
...(Task Force member comments)
Conclusion
Reminder about next day's duplicate call.  [Note: we are scheduling two days
in the event that conflicts prevented someone from participating on day
one... we may have limited attendance for Day Two. That is yet to be
determined.]

On scheduling/availability:  Please keep Marie Juliano informed if you want
a "pre scheduled" slot...
Marie is managing the scheduling of others who have asked for a time slot...
We will announce it at the beginning of the call since there may be an
addition or two.

Questions or comments from any  other participants. Constituency reps on the
TF who wish to make comments should let Marie know.  There will be an
opportunity to take questions from the participants, and my intent is to
poll for those who want to be in queue after the scheduled presentations, so
that we all know how many folks want to speak.

The IPC rep has indicated that they may have a conflict and may need to
comment electronically. IF your constituency is in that position, please
notify me.  I have acknowledgement from the GA that they will be represented
on both calls. Thank you for your participation.

On Participation: As chair, I asked our Secretariat to post widely. Thanks,
Glen, for that.  These are busy times and people are traveling and in
meetings. I appreciate your sharing this notice widely within your
constituencies/GA.