RE: [nc-transfer] RE: Official gTLD Statement on the Wait List Service -- clarifica tion, and looking ahead to the continued work of the T F

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

Jeff, I think you misunderstood me and that should have been hard to do.  :-) I'll try again for clarity on this.

 

I asked if any constituencies would have a minority report.  Christine noted that your constituency would have a minority report in the TF.  :-)  Your statement was not conveyed as your minority report. IF you want it to be the "minority report" of your constituency to the TF, that is fine, but can you please clarify that, or whether you indeed will present a minority report which has further substance, and which clarifies the areas I requested that your constituency describe?

 

 

 

So, once again: 

 

Is that your minority report for the constituency?

If so, I have asked for further clarification from the Constituency. [See email below].

If not, please let me know that you will have a minority report,  and your TF representatives should make it available to the TF before the call, and plan to 

discuss it within the TF on the next call.  

 

And, yes, the TF will vote on all submissions. BUT we want to be sure we are voting on what your constituency considers your "minority opinion". Seems of critical importance to be sure there is clarity on what your constituecy has submitted and how you want it treated, don't you think?

 

Please let me know as soon as you can if the Registry Constituency will have a different document noting it is your minority report or whether we should table the submission in question as your minority report.  Please note my request for further clarification by your constitiency so that the TF has the full benefit of your constituency's views on this.

Best regards,

 

Marilyn Cade 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us]
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 9:57 AM
To: 'Safran, David'; Neuman, Jeff; Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: Transfer TF (E-mail); Dan Halloran (E-mail); Louis Touton (E-mail); Philip Sheppard (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [nc-transfer] RE: Official gTLD Statement on the Wait List Se rvice -- clarifica tion, and looking ahead to the continued work of the T F

Has the TF voted on the gTLD statement?  Will they be able to before it formally gets submitted to the DNSO as a "minority report?" 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Safran, David [mailto:DSafran@nixonpeabody.com]
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 9:46 AM
To: 'Neuman, Jeff'; 'Cade,Marilyn S - LGA'
Cc: Transfer TF (E-mail); Dan Halloran (E-mail); Louis Touton (E-mail); Philip Sheppard (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [nc-transfer] RE: Official gTLD Statement on the Wait List Se rvice -- clarifica tion, and looking ahead to the continued work of the T F

I think Marilyn meant that it is a minority report of the TTF, not the DNSO.

 

David Safran

-----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us]
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 9:23 AM
To: 'Cade,Marilyn S - LGA'; Neuman, Jeff
Cc: Transfer TF (E-mail); Dan Halloran (E-mail); Louis Touton (E-mail); Philip Sheppard (E-mail)
Subject: [nc-transfer] RE: Official gTLD Statement on the Wait List Service -- clarifica tion, and looking ahead to the continued work of the TF

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