<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
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
Marilyn,
I am
forwarding this message on to the group (along with all the other ones).
At this point I cannot tell you if there will be a separate document because I
am awaiting their feedback. What I can tell you, however, is that in the
event we do not have another document, it is the constituency's expectation that
the statement already issued to the Task Force will be forwarded to the Names
Council, in its entirety, and be considered. It should be referred
to the DNSO as being a "report of the gTLDs" rather than a "minority
report."
If:
(a)
the DNSO has had an opportunity to consider the gTLD
statement;
(b) the DNSO has had a chance to vote on the issue;
and
(c)
and it turns out that the gTLD statement is not to be adopted by the
DNSO,
only then could it appropriately be labeled as a "minority
report."
Sorry
for being such a stickler on this, but I believe labels sometimes can
be misleading :) We do appreciate the opportunity to provide
comments on this subject matter.
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
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
>>>
|