RE: [nc-transfer] Transfers task force and the NC expectations

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>]

I disagree Philip.  The Board was asking for only that relevant to the Wait List Service.  It was not an open invitation to explore deletions as a whole.  I agree someone will have to address these deletions issues (when someone figures out what the issues are).  We have way too much work to do on transfers.  The role of Task Forces is to discuss narrow issues. 

 

At some point a task force needs to be absolved.  Look at other policy and technical bodies.  All of them are asked to address extremely narrow issues.  Once that narrow issue is addressed, the Task Force disbands.  A new Task Force should be commissioned with respect to deletions.  Diversity of membership to the task force, diversity of leadership, and diversity of opinions needs to be encouraged.

 

As I previously stated, my constituency has not authorized me to discuss deletions and personally I do not have the time to take up deletions as well.  So, if the transfer task force  takes up deletions, I would respectfully ask that I be allowed to go back to my constituency to get a different representative.  I would like to continue working on the transfers issue however and can still devote the time to that.

 

Again, I implore you Philip to raise the issue with the NC.  I also implore the Names Council to come up with an extremely narrow charter on the work of the new task force on deletions.

-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 6:05 AM
To: nc-transfer@dnso.org
Subject: [nc-transfer] Transfers task force and the NC expectations

Transfers TF,

For the record allow me to remind you what the Names Council has asked of the Transfers Task Force.

 

1. Transfers

11 October 201 The NC resolved to establish a Transfers TF.

 

2. Deletes

The NC meeting of 29 May confirmed the referral of the ICANN board request on WLS to the Transfers TF and in addition adopted the following outline for the broader issues raised:

"- Deletion issue,
- Possible solutions
- Verisign Wait Listing Service proposal
The report will comment on the:
- the status of deletions,
- possible steps for ICANN to take on the redemption policy
- options to ameliorate harm done to Registrants
- ways of lessening the load on Registries
- the Wait Listing Service proposal from Verisign."

 

By this action the NC has assumed that the Transfers TF would produce recommendations to the NC on the relevant policy issues surrounding transfers, deletes, WLS, redemption grace period. The NC has not established any other body to do this work.

 

It was left to the TF to prioritise the issues and its order of work. If that means constituencies choose to change their reps to bring expertise as the subject matter of the TF changes, that is acceptable, prudent and efficient.

 

 

Philip Sheppard
NC Chair