[nc-transfer] Transfer report to NC, GA, and Board

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Ross Rader captured a key frustration of your chair. I value the time which all of you have to commit to this process, but of late, some are unable to join, and fail to even notify Marie/thus me. 

We had our scheduled work session for the Transfer TF at 11:30 A.M. - 1:30 p.m.

Our work session today included Ross, Marilyn, Alex on behalf of the GA, and Grant to review and update the work of the TF in terms of presentations at Bucharest, recommendations to the NC.  Although there were several email notices, there were several "no shows".  The bridge didn't work to include Dan and David who are stalwart participants/contributors. Sloan notified us that he was just arriving and would need a "catch up briefing". Some others didn't attend, but without notice.

We apologize that the conf. bridge didn't work for Dan who RSVP'd

 -- Grant and I are editing a presentation which will be posted shortly regarding Transfers so that we can do a report at the NC meeting. You  should be sure to pay attention to the presentation and its recommendations.  And GET YOUR COMMENTS BACK TO US.

Marilyn
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 1:51 PM
To: 'Transfer TF (E-mail)'
Subject: [nc-transfer] Call to Action...


I've noticed that participation has been waning lately. Despite sporadic
posts to the mailing lists, call attendance has dropped significantly
and there are task force members that I have not heard from in months.

This is unacceptable to the members of the constituency I represent.
Part of the deal is that we commit to solving the issues before us in a
cooperative manner - even if that means hunkering down for the long
haul.

To date, I have received no comment on the registrar constituency
transfer proposal - despite repeated solicitations and the fact that it
has been on the table for many, many weeks. I have also seen no comment
on David's proposal regarding deletes that was tabled earlier this week.
Should the chair assume that these documents have the consensus support
of the TF and forward them to the NC as the formal policy
recommendations of the TF?

There are also some other questions that we need to take a look at,
*now*...

1) Is there a need for a standardized registered name deletion policy?
If so, what do we need to do to arrive at that policy? What steps would
need to be taken to have it adopted by all accredited registrars? What
role do the registries play in this? What might a policy of this nature
look like?

2) Should the TF be recommending a consensus policy track on the WLS? Is
a larger policy/process needed to deal with future registry services of
this nature? What might a process like this look like?

We have a face to face meeting next week - hopefully we can get some
serious work done towards answering these questions and deal with the
outstanding policy proposals.



                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal: http://www.byte.org/heathrow