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 Bucharest; that 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