[nc-transfer] RE: Official gTLD Statement on the Wait List Service -- clarification, and looking ahead to the continued work of the TF

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>]

Marilyn,

 

Thank you for your note.  I will send it to the group for comment.  I do have one issue with your statement to us and that is that you are classifying anything we submit as a "minority report" before the DNSO has a chance to look at our statement.  This is one of the reasons that our constituency has not been in support of the "minority v. majority report" concept.

 

What if it turns out that the majority of the DNSO supports our view?  Would it still e classified as a minority report?

 

Thanks.

 

Jeff

[Neuman, Jeff]  -----Original Message-----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:mcade@att.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 5:11 PM
To: Jeff Neuman (E-mail)
Cc: Transfer TF (E-mail); Dan Halloran (E-mail); Louis Touton (E-mail); Philip Sheppard (E-mail)
Subject: Official gTLD Statement on the Wait List Service -- clarification, and looking ahead to the continued work of the TF

Jeff

 

Thank you for the attached post outlining part of the Constituency's views. It is helpful to the TF to note that the Registry Constituency is on record as endorsing the approval of the VS WLS, as noted in the attached.  And, it is helpful to the TF, to have it clarified that it is the Registry Constituency who  has these objections. 

 

Can I ask that the Registry Constituency provide more detail on what you object to regarding the TF's work overall?  As members of the TF, I do believe that you  have a responsibility to contribute to its work and success, even if you take exception to, or disagree with recommendations. Thus, it would be  helpful to the TF, and important to the integrity of its work, to hear from your constituency regarding the additional areas you are concerned about.

 

Finally, Jeff, I am sure that Christine has relayed this to you, but your constituency should prepare and submit a minority report to the TF for our next meeting. You have two representatives to the TF, of course. They should present the minority report at the next meeting. That is because it  is possible that the TF might accept some portion of the minority report. You may not be the only constituency with a minority report, by the way.  I am not sure about that yet.  Your minority report, in any case, will be forwarded without any change by the TF, along with the final report of the TF, to the NC.  And minority reports are forwarded onto the Board by the NC.  Your minority report should, of course, have substance to it, not just be a disagreement with the process which the TF has followed.   :-) 

 

I am happy to talk to you further.  Please share  my email with your constituency.

 

On a longer term note:  Much work remains before the TF, regardless of the outcome of WLS. I would hope that we can count on your constituency's full participation and contributions. A quick review of attendance at TF calls, and perhaps noting the participation within this TF is usually made through contributions either on the calls, or by postings to the list in response to submissions by others will be helpful to your constituency as you consider your longer term support and participation within the TF and its work on Transfers and Deletes.

 

Regards,

Marilyn Cade

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Neuman, Jeff

To: 'mcade@att.com' ; 'dnso.secretariat@dnso.org' ; 'council@dnso.org'

Cc: 'touton@icann.org' ; 'lynn@icann.org' ; 'gtld-planning@nic.museum' ; 'vinton.g.cerf@wcom.com'

Sent: 10 July 2002 16:33

Subject: [council] Official gTLD Statement on the Wait List Service

Dear Transfer Task Force/Names Council,

The gTLD Constituency, which represents both the sponsored and unsponsored
gTLD registries, has had the opportunity to review the DNSO Transfer Task
Force's Report on the Wait List Service ("Report") presented to the Board at
the ICANN meeting in Bucharest.  As we have consistently stated within the
Transfer Task Force, the gTLD constituency has several serious concerns with
the report and the process behind producing that Report, which prevent us
from giving it our support.

More specifically, the constituency unanimously believes that the Report
delves into matters that are beyond the scope of any policy task force and
certainly are not appropriate for the policy consensus process.  These
matters include, but are not limited to: (1) whether a Registry Service can
be introduced by a Registry Operator; and (2) the price of a Registry
Service.  We believe that such issues are related to the business of the
individual registry and are more appropriate for the market place to
regulate rather than ICANN.

In light of these, we strongly believe that VeriSign's proposed amendment to
Appendix G be approved by ICANN and that they be allowed to introduce the
Wait List Service.

*We want to note for the record that because of VeriSign's inherent interest
in this issue, VeriSign did not participate in the gTLD Constituency's
discussion of this particular issue.

Thank you for this opportunity to present our comments and we would be happy
to answer any questions that you may have.

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Chair, gTLD Registry Constituency
e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@NeuLevel.biz