<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
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
- To: "'Safran, David'" <DSafran@nixonpeabody.com>, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>, "'Cade,Marilyn S - LGA'" <mcade@att.com>
- 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
- From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 08:56:41 -0500
- Cc: "Transfer TF (E-mail)" <nc-transfer@dnso.org>, "Dan Halloran (E-mail)" <halloran@icann.org>, "Louis Touton (E-mail)" <touton@icann.org>, "Philip Sheppard (E-mail)" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
- Sender: owner-nc-transfer@dnso.org
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?"
I
think Marilyn meant that it is a minority report of the TTF, not the
DNSO.
David Safran
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 -----
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|