[registrars] RE: CNO Batch Delete Process

[Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

Chuck,

On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Rick,
>
> Thank you for sending this request.  We will respond to the Registrars
> Constituency as soon as possible and will copy Louis and Dan so that they
> can identify any concerns they have early in the process.  But I believe it
> would be best to involve other constituencies after VGRS and the registrars
> have a chance to work their concerns first.  Starting off with everyone in
> the community would probably make the process unwieldy.

Like I stated in my previous note, we look forward to your proposal, and
we hope that VGRS will follow the long-standing open principals ICANN has
set forth for all constituencies.

> My suggestion is that we first try to develop a proposal that VGRS and the
> registrars can support including input from ICANN so that their concerns are
> addressed.  Then we should quickly involve the gTLD Registry constituency as
> a whole because this will probably be an important issue to many other
> registries.  Then we can put it forth to all constituencies and the GA.

I hope your are not suggesting that the Registrars negotiate a solution
before involving all the parties that are effected by the VGRS Registry
proposal, yes, I'm sure this is not what you are proposing.

Again, the Registrars constituency hopes that VGRS will consider all the
proposals discussed and take all the comments put forth on the mailing
list under consideration when developing the proposal.

> My intent is definitely not to leave out any interested and/or impacted
> party but rather to proceed in a manner that is workable.

Of course, we too want no party or stake-holder left out of the process.

This will be my last note on this thread and hope your next response will
notify us where we all can retrieve the VGRS proposal on how to address
this issue in the long term.

personal regards,

-rick

> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rick H Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com]
> > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 10:19 PM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck
> > Cc: Registrars List; M. Stuart Lynn; Louis Touton; halloran@icann.org;
> > rick@ar.com
> > Subject: CNO Batch Delete Process
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To VeriSign Global Registration Services:
> >
> > As a result of a vote taken by the Registrars' Constituency in in last
> > meeting in Marina del Rey, I am authorized by the constituency to ask
> > VeriSign to deliver to the Registrars' Constituency and the greater
> > Internet stake-holder community a formal and detailed proposal for a
> > long-term solution to the issue of deleted domains.
> >
> > To date VGRS has advocated a back-ordering solution without clearly
> > detailing the costs and policy considerations involved. The Registrar
> > Constituency looks forward to working with VGRS and the other
> > constituencies in developing a consensus-based solution to
> > this problem.
> > Registrars expect that VGRS will fully consider all comments
> > and proposals
> > submitted to the discussion lists at
> > icann-delete@total.confusion.net and
> > that the proposal will fit within current contracts and
> > agreements with
> > the ICANN and Registrars.
> >
> > Thanking you in advance for your attention to this matter.
> >
> > yours sincerely,
> >
> >
> > Rick Wesson
> > CTO, Registrars Constituency
> > on behalf of the Registrars' Constituency
> >
> >
> >
> >
>