RE: [nc-transfer] Progressing Transfers

[Grant Forsyth <Grant.Forsyth@team.telstraclear.co.nz>]

Jeff and fellow Task Force'rs
Thanks for your further suggestions Jeff, I certainly have no problem with
what you are suggesting and see your suggestions as sensible 
If you want to improve on Ram's paper please do, my thinking was that it was
informational and quite fit for that purpose as it stood
Agree with putting off the adoption of the IRDX paper by the TF as long as
that didn't derail the later milestones
Marilyn - could you check my suggestion re schedule for adoption and public
form in Shanghi with ICANN
Thanks
Speak to you on the call

Grant Forsyth

-----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us]
Sent: Tuesday, 10 September, 2002 13:42
To: 'Grant Forsyth'; 'Cade,Marilyn S - LGA'; Transfer TF (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [nc-transfer] Progressing Transfers


Thanks Grant.  Let me propose some modifications to reflect the fact that we
have an important call this week:  SEE BELOW IN ALL CAPS:

-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Forsyth [mailto:Grant.Forsyth@team.telstraclear.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 5:48 PM
To: 'Cade,Marilyn S - LGA'; Transfer TF (E-mail)
Subject: [nc-transfer] Progressing Transfers


Marilyn
I have been reviewing the current status of the task force and have a couple
of suggestions to make.
1. I propose that Ross's IRDX paper be the core of our recommendations to
the Names Council for adoption and forwarding to the Board

WITH ANY CHANGES FROM THIS CALL (WHICH IS THE FIRST REAL TIME FOR GENERAL
PUBLIC INPUT)

2. I suggest that Ram's paper "A better way to transfer Domain Names" 15
August, be attached to the IRDX paper as an informational annex and method
of FOA

THE PAPER IS REFERENCED BELOW FOR ALL THOSE THAT MAY NOT HAVE IT READILY
AVAILABLE.  THIS IS A GOOD PIECE, BUT I AM NOT SURE IT CAN BE UNDERSTOOD OUT
OF ITS CONTEXT BY SOMEONE WHO JUST READ THAT PAPER.  IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO
INCLUDE SOMETHING LIKE THIS RAM AND I CAN TRY TO MAKE IT MORE "READER
FRIENDLY."

3. I propose that at the next TF meeting, this Wednesday/Thursday, that the
TF adopt the IRDX paper by consensus or vote (if necessary) so that we can
build on that with confidence - if there are still issues that people have
with any aspects of the paper, I would hope that they will take this
proposal to prompt them to comment on the IRDX paper such that we can make
whatever amendments are necessary and then adopt it

I DO NOT BELIEVE A VOTE SHOULD HAPPEN FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER WEEK SO THAT WE
CAN GIVE TIME (IF ANY IS NEEDED) TO ABSORB ANY PUBLIC INPUT THAT WE RECEIVE
ON THE CALL ON WEDNESDAY.  ONE MORE WEEK SHOULD DO IT.

4. I propose that we aim to put the complete report - including the IRDX as
our central recommendation - to the Names Council meeting of 3 October for
their consideration prior to the Names Council formally adopting it at
Shanghi (this will provide the NC with an appropriate time to take it back
to their constituencies (remembering that all constituencies are represented
on the TF) and post for final public comment). 

I THINK THIS STILL MAY BE ATTAINABLE EVEN IF WE HAVE AN EXTRA WEEK (ABOVE).

5. I propose that, given the Names Council will be formally adopting the TF
report at Shanghi, the public form planned for Shanghi be used to "close
off" the process and provide the Board (not the Names Council) with the
opportunity to receive final comments on the report.

I GUESS THE PUBLIC WOULD BE GIVEN ANOTHER PERIOD FOR PUBLIC INPUT PRIOR TO
THE NC ADOPTING THE REPORT, RIGHT?  ALSO, WE NEED TO DECIDE WHAT ACTIONS
WOULD STILL NEED TO BE ANSWERED BY THE TASK FORCE AFTER THE REPORT.  IN
ADDITION, WE NEED TO HEAR WHAT DAN AND ICANN SAY ARE REQUIRED IN ORDER FOR
THIS REPORT TO (1) BE ADOPTED AND (2) BE INCORPORATED INTO THE
REGISTRY/REGISTRAR AGREEMENTS (IF NECESSARY).

I look forward to my fellow TF members' comments on my proposals.
Regards

THANKS AGAIN GRANT.

Grant Forsyth
BC Member on the Transfers Task Force