<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[nc-transfer] Relevant to discussions posted by Registry constituency re areas of work of TR-TF
- To: <touton@icann.org>, "Transfer TF (E-mail)" <nc-transfer@dnso.org>
- Subject: [nc-transfer] Relevant to discussions posted by Registry constituency re areas of work of TR-TF
- From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:35:36 -0400
- Sender: owner-nc-transfer@dnso.org
- Thread-Index: AcIsJahUeixqI9qkTOe0V0zSGVWtDQAAIwLw
- Thread-Topic: [nc-transfer] Official gTLD Statement on the Wait List Service -- clarification, and looking ahead to the continued work of the TF
Posted with permission of author. Thanks, Louie. Marilyn
-----Original Message-----
From: Louis Touton [mailto:touton@icann.org]
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 12:55 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: 'Louis Touton'; 'Dan Halloran'; Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us
Subject: FW: [nc-transfer] Official gTLD Statement on the Wait List
Service -- clarification, and looking ahead to the continued work of the
TF
Marilyn,
Registry services (a defined term basically meaning services that a
registry operator provides as an integral part of its operation of
the registry) are governed in several respects by the registry
agreements. Among the provisions concerning registry services are
(a) all registrars have equivalent access, (b) functional/performance
specifications, and (c) price caps. These are, in general,
contractual matters, and not necessarily policy matters that would
be within the ambit of the DNSO. In the case of WLS, however, the
Board invited the NC to provide comments from the DNSO because the
Board concluded "it would be helpful to receive community comment
on the request, and particularly on policy concerns raised by the
request that would harm the legitimate interests of others".
I believe Jeff makes a valid point in distinguishing between
decisions to be made by ICANN and policy issues that are within
the scope of recommendations to be made by the DNSO. As noted
above, the Board asked for DNSO input on policy issues implicated
by the WLS proposal. The price for a particular service would
ordinarily be thought of as the application of policy (not a DNSO
issue), rather than the establishment or revision of a generally
applicable policy (those issues are within the DNSO policy-
recommendation scope).
Best regards,
Louis Touton
-----Original Message-----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:mcade@att.com]
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 8:08 AM
To: Louis Touton (E-mail); Dan Halloran (E-mail)
Subject: FW: [nc-transfer] Official gTLD Statement on the Wait List
Service -- clarification, and looking ahead to the continued work of the
TF
Can I get a clarification for the TF, on what the authority is under which
ICANN approves services at the registry level? Appendix G?
-----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us]
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 9:48 AM
To: 'Dan Steinberg'; Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Transfer TF (E-mail); Dan Halloran (E-mail); Louis
Touton (E-mail); Philip Sheppard (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [nc-transfer] Official gTLD Statement on the Wait List
Service -- clarification, and looking ahead to the continued work of the
TF
According to our Agreements with ICANN, the registries are required to seek
approval from ICANN (note I did not say the DNSO, or a policy body within
ICANN) for any pricing (or changes to prices) new registry services. It was
never contemplated by the registries that the DNSO (or any policy body)
would have jurisdiction over such terms and conditions.
In our view, and as one who was very active in the contract negotiations
with ICANN on behalf of NeuLevel, pricing was never considered a policy
matter.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Steinberg [mailto:synthesis@videotron.ca]
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 12:51 AM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: Jeff Neuman (E-mail); Transfer TF (E-mail); Dan Halloran (E-mail);
Louis Touton (E-mail); Philip Sheppard (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [nc-transfer] Official gTLD Statement on the Wait List
Service -- clarification, and looking ahead to the continued work of the
TF
Jeff,
I am curious. If you believe that things such as the WLS are
inappropriate for the task force and even for ICANN to regulate then why
not just implement them wihtout seeking approval? Why are you seeking
ICANN approval for an ammendment to Appendix G in the first place?
--
Dan Steinberg
SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|