RE: [nc-transfer] Posting of relevance to Transfer TF Recommendations on WLS, clarification of inaccurate information, and schedules

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> With that being said, and since I am a new person on the 
> list, is there a latest status report of where the Task Force 
> stands on the transfers issue and the work that has been 
> completed up to date?  The gTLD Constituency remains firmly 
> committed to helping to resolve the transfer issues as 
> quickly as possible.

I'll leave it to our Chair to provide a status update, however I would
like to offer the following amendment to the work we have before us
given some of the recent policy development initiatives.

It is my understanding that our next step is to complete the survey
content and implement the survey. Given that the primary reason for
implementing the survey in the first place was to involve end-users in
the policy development process (those that are not necessarily
represented within the ICANN process), I would like to formally request
that this work item be taken off the table.

My reasons for this request are very simple. Throughout the Redemption
Grace Period and WLS Consensus Recommendation process, it became very
clear that the DNSO can very appropriately include end-users in the
policy development process without resorting to the overwhelming effort
that a survey will require. Further, as the Whois task force has
demonstrated, the results of such a survey may provide no further
insight into the needs of the end-user registrant community than would a
well thought out public comment and outreach process.

Further to this recommendation, I would like to formally request that
our Chair seeks a formal deadline for the presentation of our policy
recommendations from the Names Council. This issue has dragged on for
far too long without resolution, largely because of the lack of a
concrete deadline (which has resulted in this important issue being
"back-burnered" in favor of policy issues that had concrete deadlines
attached).

Lastly, I would like to reiterate that the Registrar Constituency
proposal has been on the table for a number of months without material
comment forthcoming from the Task Force. We remain strongly committed to
this proposal and would like to continue to pursue resolution of this
matter in the fashion that our proposal describes. This proposal can be
found at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00152.html

Thanks,



                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nc-transfer@dnso.org 
> [mailto:owner-nc-transfer@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 12:01 PM
> To: 'Cade,Marilyn S - LGA'; Transfer TF (E-mail); Louis 
> Touton (E-mail); Dan Halloran (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: [nc-transfer] Posting of relevance to Transfer 
> TF Recommendations on WLS, clarification of inaccurate 
> information, and schedules
> 
> 
> I think Marilyn and I are in agreement at least about one 
> thing.  It is time to move on to the other issues of the Task 
> Force  :)
> 
> With that being said, and since I am a new person on the 
> list, is there a latest status report of where the Task Force 
> stands on the transfers issue and the work that has been 
> completed up to date?  The gTLD Constituency remains firmly 
> committed to helping to resolve the transfer issues as 
> quickly as possible.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:mcade@att.com]
> Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 1:02 PM
> To: Transfer TF (E-mail); Louis Touton (E-mail); Dan Halloran (E-mail)
> Subject: [nc-transfer] Posting of relevance to Transfer TF 
> Recommendations on WLS, clarification of inaccurate 
> information, and schedules
> 
> 
> 
> Please see Susan Crawford's post on behalf of her clients, 
> SnapNames at 
> http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?wls;3D41DE6D00000358
> 
> My laywoman's analysis of the posting:  
> Ms. Crawford explains her client's views on what ICANN CAN 
> do, in regard to registry services, notes her client's views 
> on the recommendations of the Task Force in a few areas, 
> recommends against accepting the proposed conditions 
> recommended by the Task Force and supported by the Names 
> Council vote, and presents a request to the Board for prompt 
> approval of the WLS service, presumably as verbally modified 
> by Verisign, in Bucharest] in a simple up/down vote on the 
> WLS price alone.
> 
> I have reviewed Ms.Crawford's submission in some detail.
> 
> Regardless of any other views I may have as Task Force chair 
> on her posting 
> for her client, unfortunately, one section seems to be reliant on a 
> previous version of the recommendations, in the "cost 
> element" section at least.  
> 
> The original recommendation that Ms. Crawford references 
> which is #3 in her 
> submission is headed "Pricing questions." She then 
> paraphrases from the earlier
> DRAFT recommendations of the Task Force.   
> 
> I note for the Task Force archives that #3, as described by 
> Ms. Crawford that 
> this particular recommendation was modified by vote of the 
> Task Force in 
> its meeting on 7/22, is not the recommendation within the 
> final ballot which
> 
> was distributed to the Task Force list and provided to the TF 
> members to vote, 
> and is not the version which is in the final report. 
> 
> In particular, I note that extensive discussion and 
> consideration was given to the views and objections of the 
> Registry Constituency regarding the "cost" element recommendation 
> in particular and to their position paper which challenges 
> the Task Force's work on several fronts. Due notice and 
> recognition has been given throughout the process to the 
> objections of the constituency and in particular to their 
> concerns related to this issue. 
> ICANN staff were present on the call. After further 
> discussion related to this particular element, the TF then 
> edited the DRAFT recommendations by accepting amendments, 
> voted on whether to accept the amendments to the DRAFT 
> recommendations, and then 
> posted the revised recommendations as the final ballot for 
> vote by email within the Task Force. 
> 
> A brief description of the changes made in the DRAFT recommendations
> follows:
> 
> The replacement "element" in particular to Ms. Crawford's 
> submission is noted as E, under II, 
> and is labeled "Cost" in the summary of the vote, distributed 
> by the Names Council chair 
> to the Names Council. The complete language which the vote 
> was taken on is as follows: "WLS should be cost based, 
> consistent with previous considerations for 
> approval of Registry services by the ICANN board". The 
> outcome of the vote on all elements is shown in the final report.
>   
> Other modifications were made in the recommendations, as 
> well, in particular II, A, to change 
> from 3 months to 6 months, and in C.2, which was 
> substantively modified as well, by the Task Force by a vote 
> on 7/22.  These changes will be noted further in the minutes 
> which Glen 
> will be completing for posting as soon as time permits. 
> 
> However, these modifications were apparent since they were 
> reflected in the final ballot 
> which was distributed and voted on by the Task Force and are 
> the recommendations forwarded to the Names Council for vote.  
> The final ballot was posted to the Task Force on 7/22 and has 
> been on the site since. The final report is available as of 
> 7/24 on both the Names Council 
> and Task Force sites.
> 
> I will draw Ms.Crawford's attention to the final ballot 
> distributed on 7/22,
> 
> with the revised "cost based element" as well as to the Final 
> Report for any action she/her client consider appropriate to 
> their communications related to the Task Force recommendations.
> 
> I thereby advise the Transfer TF members that they should 
> continue to monitor the Public Forums to follow any further 
> discussion re WLS.
> 
> However, I am not encouraging the TF to take up a debate 
> regarding WLS again.I 
> recommend that we consider at this point, that our work in 
> assessing, analyzing and recommending has resulted in an 
> extensive report which provides the 
> requested advice to the Board.  I will forward ONLY posts 
> which I consider directly 
> material and relevant to the TF list.  I will direct other posts to 
> me which are commentary to the DNSO Public Forum list, which 
> is still open.
> 
> In short, while I believe the TF should remain current and 
> informed on what is being said, we are now in the position of 
> awaiting what the recommendation of
> the board is on WLS.   We may as a Task Force, or as 
> individual constituency
> representatives/GA have a view on what others say about our 
> work, of course.
> :-)
> And, clarifications of fact will continue to be responded to, 
> as appropriate. I do not intend to take up the time of the 
> Task Force except as relevant to questions about our work, 
> process, recommendations, or issues dealing with clarification of 
> fact.
> 
> 
> Transfers and Deletes Schedules:
> 
> We will be posting a schedule of possible conference meeting 
> dates for the Transfer Task Force early this week for our 
> work on transfers, and deletions.  I am in the process of 
> trying to check Glen's schedule, and Dan Halloran's. In the 
> future, we will make all attempts to have ICANN staff 
> participate in our calls, as their schedules permit.
> 
>