[nc-transfer] FW: Public Comment Summary (12-11-02)

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

Folks,

Please find below a summary of the public comments received during the
comment period for the final report. I will be including them in the
Final version of the report that will be sent to the Names Council later
today. Note that this amendment as well as the impact analysis from the
Registry Constituency will clearly be noted as not having had the
benefit of public comment as part of the Final Report as posted, but
that the comments and submission have all been clearly part of the
public record leading up to 12-11-02.

If there are any questions, please feel free to drop me a note.



                       -rwr

Total number of posts as of 12-11-02: 9
Total number of substantive comments to the report[1] : 6

Substantive Comments Include:

From Elana Broitman
(http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-transfer/Arc02/msg00001.
html)
-	questions concerning what constitutes a "Constituency Impact
Statements" and the inability of the Registrar Constituency to create
and provide one within the eight days allotted.

From Danny Younger
(http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-transfer/Arc02/msg00002.
html)
-	Comments concerning the perceived deficiencies of the process
followed by the Task Force and the data and analysis presented in the
Final Report of the Task Force.

From Danny Younger
(http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-transfer/Arc02/msg00003.
html )
-	concerned with the limited time during which the Final Report
was available for comment.	

From Jeff Williams
(http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-transfer/Arc02/msg00004.
html) 
-	concurs with Broitman's assessment (above)
-	concurs with Youngers criticism (above)
-	concerned with the lack of contact information in the Final
Report
-	concerned with the lack of choice and lack of diversity that
ICANN's accreditation regime creates.

From the Registry Constituency
(http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-transfer/Arc02/msg00005.
html) 
-	requests formally that no action be taken on the Final Report at
the December 14, 2002 Names Council meeting;
o	too little time to for the Internet community to analyse and
respond to,
o	Final Report has sparked community discussion that needs to be
taken into account.
-	Registry Constituency supports many of the recommendations of
the Final Report, but is reserving adopting a final position until such
time that the issue has been worked out in other Constituencies,
including the Registrar Constituency.
-	Proposes deferring the issue for action until the January, 2003
Names Council meeting.

From Chuck Gomes
(http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-transfer/Arc02/msg00007.
html)
-	presents a list of sixteen principles that have been formally
endorsed by ten ICANN Accredited Registrars.
-	Notes the critical nature of Registrar support for the proposed
policies and encourages other Registrars that also support the document
to also provide a formal indication of support.

[1] 3 other comments were received. One was an administrative notice
from the DNSO secretariat and the other two were requests for
clarification by the Task Force Chair.