RE: [registrars] Draft Letter

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>]

Rob,

 

Just to set the record straight, the principal authors of the document were myself and Bruce Tonkin. I started with various material from several registrars. All that really remained from TUCOES original letter was the header information :-) It was the integration of input from various registrars that took so much time on my part. I am sure that Ross would be more than willing to send you a copy of their original letter, however, I believe they will be sending a copy of their letter directly to ICANN as well.

 

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 11:35 AM
To: Michael D. Palage; registrars@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [registrars] Draft Letter

Good work Michael,

I have a few comments below on the letter.

1)  We seem to be repeating ourselves in the letter.  We twice ask for ICANN to post the letter to their website, and we repeat the "existing transfer policy" in our "problems section".

I would suggest removing the second request to post the letter.  ICANN will post it with just one request (I think they will post it without any request actually).

I would also suggest removing the second iteration of the "transfer policy".   This is a letter to ICANN, whom is well aware of the policy currently in place. 

2)  In the problems section we use the wording "A small number of registrars representing a very large portion of the total market, have recently initiated changes to these procedures; these changes are ..."

I believe it should be changed to "initiated changes in their procedures".  The registrars in question have not changed the ICANN procedure, but rather have changed their procedures.  They will argue that they are still acting within the ICANN procedures, which are ambiguous in some areas.  What we really are asking for is the tightening down of these "grey" areas.

The ICANN procedures have not changed, just the implementation by some registrars.  The references in the document referring to the change in procedures should be modified to reflect the change in "their" procedures.

3)  We also say the "actions of the 2 registrars" in the problem section.  I thought there were 4 (and now one has been acquired by Verisign).  Throughout the rest of the document, we refer to "a small number".  We should be consistent through the document.


The "Registrar efforts to date" section that details the efforts in Stockholm is great.  Good Job !  The reference to "the registrars met today" needs to be changed to "yesterday" if the date on the letter is to remain the 24th.

4)  I would suggest a possible softening (or removal) of the words "If the Constituency does not receive guidance from ICANN on this issue within two weeks, the Constituency will advise its Names Council representatives to ..." .  To me, it sounds too much like a threat.  We have asked for direction from ICANN.  We shouldn't threaten them with what we will do if they don't respond.  Perhaps something more like "As time is of the essence, the Registrars Consistency would like to move forward down one of the above two paths within the next two weeks."

5)  In the conclusion, I would remove the first sentence of the last paragraph.  We have already asked for posting, and they will.

On a grammatical note, the last sentence needs an extra comma and the "ing" removed.  Should read " ... and if necessary, stand willing to participate with the other DNSO constituencies in resolving this problem.


A good start on the letter. Well done.

Rob.

(P.S.  Ross, next time you author a document, you may want to remove yourself from the "properties" box of the document <grin>)



At 04:32 AM 7/24/2001 -0400, Michael D. Palage wrote:

Attached please find the proposed letter to Stuart drafted in accordance
with the discussion during yesterday's teleconference and which the
Constituency proposes sending to ICANN. I believe that the letter achieves
the objectives stated in our teleconference yesterday. Please provide any
comments to the letter during the next 24 hours so that I can submit it to
ICANN ASAP. This letter is important to the ongoing consensus building
efforts that the Constituency has undertaken and I urge all member to review
this letter closely.

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage

--

Rob Hall                                voice  (613) 768-5100

President                                  fax  (613) 820-0777

Momentous.ca Corp.                          

rob@momentous.ca                      www.momentous.ca

iti,s