RE: [nc-transfer] Latest IRDX Draft and Status Update - tomorrow' s agenda

["Safran, David" <DSafran@nixonpeabody.com>]

I am afraid that I have to agree with Jeff this time; new registry services
(apart for the WLS) does not seem to be within our bailiwick.
  
David S. Safran
Nixon Peabody LLP 
8180 Greensboro Drive
Suite 800
McLean, VA 22102
Office:  703.770.9315
Fax:  703.770.9400
dsafran@nixonpeabody.com 

This email message and any attachments are confidential. If you are not the
intended recipient, please immediately reply to the sender and delete the
message from your email system. Thank you.



-----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us]
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 11:38 AM
To: ross@tucows.com; Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; Transfer TF (E-mail)
Cc: Bruce Tonkin (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [nc-transfer] Latest IRDX Draft and Status Update -
tomorrow' s agenda


Can someone please explain to me how the "introduction of new registry
services" fits within the terms of reference of the transfers task force.

It is one thing to recommend that the ICANN staff/Board come up with a
standardized way to deal with new registry services.  It is another for the
Task Force to go into any more detail than that.  Please, lets not have the
Transfers Task Force go into this realm as well. 

In fact, I am not even sure that this is an appropriate policy area that the
DNSO has jurisdiction over.  New Registry Services are in the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Board (except perhaps to the extent that they ask for
the DNSO's advise).

Jeff 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 8:56 AM
To: 'Cade,Marilyn S - LGA'; 'Transfer TF (E-mail)'
Cc: 'Bruce Tonkin (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: [nc-transfer] Latest IRDX Draft and Status Update -
tomorrow's agenda


> Ross, I'll put your report on the agenda as our primary 
> activity for tomorrow's call. 

Much thanks.


> Ross: would you repost to the group your 
> suggestion/recommendation that you made during our WLS 
> drafting that the TF recommend to the NC that the Board 
> should establish a standard consensus policy related to 
> new registry services. We discussed that very briefly; did 
> not vote on it to include it in the WLS report; but it 
> remains an item which the TF should consider and either 
> forward to the NC as a recommendation 
> to pass along to the Board, or we should close the issue out. 

The original rec. can be found at:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00396.html

Questions, as always, are welcomed.

                       -rwr




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

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

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