RE: [nc-transfer] NC Transfer TF recommendations on WLS - Final Ballot- Please VOTE

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

Explanation of process on voting. One of our members noted that the ballot was very 
clear if you were on the call, but had some areas which might be misunderstood IF you were not.

 I am not asking to reissue the email vote, but offer some clarifications.

First, you are asked to vote on each element under I, and then on I itself.

Secondly, vote on each element on II. 

Your options in all cases are Yes, No, or Abstain.

On the elements under II, 

Note that on B, which has 1, 2, or 3 as options: If you vote "yes" on one of the options, or "no", that is all you need to do. IF you wish to abstain on all three, then you should mark abstain on all three. 

Note that on C, you should vote either on C.1 or C.2. You should just add in the 
Yes
No
Abstain 

on C.1 if C.1. is your choice. 

Sorry that we omitted including the options on that item... ... oversight on our part. Doesn't change the 
ballot otherwise. 

D and  E seem straightforward enough: Yes, No, Abstain.

Then, tell Glen who you are and which group you represent, so she can ensure that all groups have voted, or abstained.... 

Send it into to DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org

Hopefully, this answers any questions. Regards, Marilyn
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA 
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 7:02 PM
To: DNSO Secretariat; nc-transfer@dnso.org
Cc: Dan Halloran (E-mail); Louis Touton (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [nc-transfer] NC Transfer TF recommendations on WLS - Final
Ballot- Please VOTE


REMINDER. REMINDER. REMINDER.

DO NOT POST YOUR VOTE TO THE TRANSFER TF LIST. POST IT DIRECTLY TO GLEN, AS INSTRUCTED.
SHE WILL RECEIVE AND DOCUMENT ALL VOTES. THE OUTCOME OF THE VOTES WILL BE PUBLIC, 
BUT THE PROCESS OF SUBMITTING THEM IS TAKEN OFF LINE.

SECONDLY, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, YOU CAN REACH ME ON MY CELL ON 202-255-7348.  

Thanks, all, for your very professional approach to dealing with tough and divisive issues.
Special thanks to the ICANN staff who have made themselves available for quick responses
on questions we have had.  

As we discussed, I am reformatting the final report to follow more closely the formal outline
of requested documentation. You will all have information to verify tomorrow.  The content is not 
changing, but the organizational structure of the report will look different.

My appreciation to all for your involvement and participation in the Task Force's work. 

-----Original Message-----
From: DNSO Secretariat [mailto:DNSO.secretariat@dnso.org]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 6:14 PM
To: nc-transfer@dnso.org
Subject: [nc-transfer] NC Transfer TF recommendations on WLS - Final
Ballot- Please VOTE


[To: nc-transfer@dnso.org]

The ballot which follows is the final ballot for the e-mail vote of the
Transfer Task Force on the Task Force recommendations on the WLS.

Recommendations were modified in a conference call meeting, July 22, 2002
where all members of the Task Force were represented except for the GA.

The Task Force representatives are asked to return their vote by private
e-mail directly to:
DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org

by Tuesday, July 23, 2002,  at 2:00 pm (14:00) EST.


The Task Force is presented with two recommendations. You are asked to vote
on both and on each sub-element by putting [x] next to your choice.

I. Recommendation  1:  To deny the WLS:

Please vote on this:

A. The ICANN board move with all haste to implement and actively enforce the
proposed Redemptions Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice
Yes
No
Abstain

B. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to amend its agreement to
enable it to introduce its proposed WLS.
Yes
No
Abstain


C. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to trial the WLS for 12 months.
Yes
No
Abstain

I. Recommendation to deny the WLS:
Yes
No
Abstain


II. Recommendation:
Should the ICANN board not accept the policy recommendations noted above
and grant Verisign's request for a change to its agreement and a 12 month
trial of its WLS, we would alternatively recommend that WLS be approved with
conditions:

Please vote on this.

A. The introduction of WLS is dependent on the implementation and proven
(for not less than six months) practice envisaged in the proposed
Redemption Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice and the
establishment of a standard deletion practise.
Yes
No
Abstain


B. Several Constituencies remain concerned that a standard deletion practise
be established and implemented. Some TF members believe that this could be
considered separately from WLS.

VOTE ON ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING THREE:

1) Standard Deletion practise should be established at same time as WLS and
implemented before WLS.
Yes
No
Abstain

2) Standard deletion practise should be established, but need not be in
place before
WLS is implemented.
Yes
No
Abstain

3) Standard deletion practise should be considered separately.
Yes
NO
Abstain

TWO OPTIONS ARE PRESENTED, for C, C. 1 and C. 2  BUT ONLY VOTE FOR ONE

C. 1. The WLS include a requirement that notice be provided by the Registry
(through the registrar) to the existing registrant of a domain name when a
WLS option is taken out against that registrant's domain name.

                                                  OR

C. 2. Information should be available to the encumbent domain
name holder when a WLS has been put on the name.
Yes
No
Abstain

D. The WLS include a requirement for full transparency as to who has placed
a WLS option on a domain name and the registrar that actions the option.
{Transparency}
Yes
No
Abstain

E. WLS should be cost based, consistent with previous considerations for
approval of Registry services by the ICANN Board.
Yes
No
Abstain
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Please fill in the folowing information:
NAME:

Please identify name of Constituency or GA:


Return your ballot by Tuesday, July 23, 2002, 2:00 pm EST (14:00 EST)
to:
DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org