ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[nc-transfer]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[nc-transfer] FW: WLS


:
"Dear Transfers Task Force Members

Today, I announced a call for Wednesday for the Transfer TF at 2:00 p.m. - 4:00  p.m. EST. The agenda for that call is focused on WLS and finalizing a document which will be presented to the NC call on 7/11 and posted for public comment.
 
Subsequent work sessions will be scheduled for transfers/deletes.
I have invited ICANN staff to join us for this call; depending upon availability , they may be on the call with us.
 
The draft status report has been available for some time, and you also have draft recommendations on WLS posted by Grant Forsyth, BC, to the TF on 4 June 2002.  A briefing on this recommendation was provided in Bucharestthat presentation is attached and posted on the DNSO web site.
 
In Bucharest, there was also a public forum where Verisign presented and public comments were taken  on WLS. Several members of the TF were present.  Verisign has presented some significant changes in their original proposal.  I have asked Verisign and the ICANN staff to provide the latest version of the proposal to the TF so that it can be incorporated in the TF's considerations and reflected in the recommendations.  That may take place during the call, unless I receive it before the call and can incorporate it.
 
To date, while input was received pre-status report, there has been very little feedback from the community, constituencies and GA on the status report, or the recommendation proposed by Grant Forsyth. This should indicate that the draft has wide support within the constituencies/GA;  however, at Bucharest, during the public forum, there were some quite contrary views expressed including by Snap Names, and a few other participants in the Forum.  Snap Names has prepared an extensive rebuttal of the Status Report and made that available to the Board.   I will request a soft copy of this, so that it can be posted to the TF archives.
 
If your constituency has views at variance with the draft posted on 4 June, PLEASE NOTE THESE CHANGES  and post to the TF and plan to discuss them on Wednesday's call.
 
Status and Next Steps:
During their Board meeting, the Board resolved to seek a final report from the Names Council by no later than 27 July.
 
Schedule of Events: In order to ensure that the Names Council is able to provide the Board with a report by 26 July.
1. Up until 10 July 2:00 p.m. EST comments on draft status report and recommendations as posted on 4 June be posted to task force or presented during the TF call.
2. 10 July TF audio conference of TF  to consider responses to 4 June draft, further input from Public Forum, Verisign modifications, and make final changes to draft report to put to NC on 11 July.
3. 11 July Scheduled NC meeting - The TF will present the draft report and respond to open discussion on draft TF report (updated to reflect input received to date) - The output of NC meeting is an NC draft report to be taken back to constituencies for comment and preparation for ratification. Given the shortness of time, we propose to have the revised recommendation posted for 10 days, via the DNSO site. The DNSO Secretariat will be asked to post to all constituencies and the GA so that they are aware of the opportunity to provide comment.
4. 21 July Close of any further input to draft report. Final version prepared by TF for NC vote and forwarding to board. Any minority reports should be formulated and forwarded to TF and to NC prior to NC conference call meeting July 24.
5. 24 July NC conference call meeting/Conclude vote on report.
6. 26 July Ratified NC report, including any minority views, forwarded to Board
 
Since posting the call, I've got  5 confirmations. Please confirm your availability if you haven't already.
 
A further clarification is in order:  Grant Forsyth has provided the following clarification re "costs/prices" discussions:
 
"I have been asked to clarify a matter of terminology that goes to a concern for the anti-competitive consequences of parties discussing "price" and hence laying themselves open to allegations of collusion. [NOTE: This is not "legal advice" and as such, you are recommended to seek your own legal advice, should you deem it desirable.]
When I referred to "price" in my recommendations and report to the NC, I was referring to the price payable to Verisign. The price that Verisign charges is a "cost" to competing registrars and those who pay that cost are at liberty to discuss it and to recommend its regulation as it will properly be a standard cost (price) due to the fact that it is a monopoly service  and Verisign will be required to offer it with out unjustified discrimination to all who seek the service ("undue discrimination" means Verisign may well vary their price (cost to registrars) on the basis of differing volume and/or service levels, but these variations would likely be made public for transparency).
Thus the "price" that I am talking about - and seeking discussion on - is not the competitive price that the registrars will charge in the market once they have added their own value and costs.
 
So please, can we have some input from constituencies on the matter of Verisign's proposed price (cost).
Thanks, Grant"
 
Moving ahead on other fronts: 
We will be finalizing the WLS portion of our work in a very fast track; this will allow us to  conclude  our role in this matter so that the Task Force can deliver its report and get on with the work of deletions and transfers!!
 
I look forward to receiving your input and to working with the above process to conclude this matter.
Regards
Marilyn Cade
Chair, Transfers Task Force
 
 

Transfer TF WLS-pres-Bucharest.ppt



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>