[registrars] Fw: [council] Final revisd report of the Review task force
fellow registrars
I just received this today and ...
Even though I was not the task force representative for the
registrars, I felt it was important to pass this on to you all for review
& comment.
As a representative for the registrars on the Names Council, I
have expressed continuing concerns that this document, as written &
originally presented, allowed for too much "flexibility" for other
constituencies to create a "scenario" whereby WE registrars could have
imposed on us a significant burden for ICANN activities in the future
without proportional benefit to our constituency.
Of particular concern to me was the potential cost of
"at-large" outreach which could easily go above $1-2 million dollars. I
did not want to see the burdens of programs like this "arbitrarily dumped" on
our constituency..
I feel it is quite important that we "weigh in" additionally
thru our current representative (Erica Roberts) as well as express our concern
to the ICANN management & board and to the ICANN budget committee thru our
constituency members Elena, Rob, & Bryan..
best regards
Ken Stubbs
----- Original Message -----
From: Philip
Sheppard
To: NC
(list)
Cc: Tony Holmes ISP ; Philip
Sheppard ; Peter
de Blanc ccTLD ; Milton Mueller ; Erica
Roberts Reg ; Axel Aus
der Muhlen ; Roberto Gaetano DNSO GA
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 7:57 AM
Subject: [council] Final revisd report of the Review task
force Names Council,
At the last NC meeting the Council had expressed overall
support for the majority of the Review task force final report. The registry
constituency and the registrars had expressed some concern about section 5
on consensus in that a proposed slight change to the by-laws may impact on
registry or registrar legal agreements. I explained that such an impact had not
been the intent of the TF and agreed as NC chair to seek clarifying wording
acceptable to the Council. I have since been in contact with ICANN Counsel and
he concurs that there could be a potential impact.
Accordingly, I present a revised final draft report which has
been modified as follows:
- the proposed change in the by-laws is
deleted
- the relevance of consensus to registry or registrar
agreements is made explicit
- a process with two options is outlined for the development
of a consensus policy.
I hope this report will now meet with Council's approval and I
submit it for approval at the forthcoming NC meeting December 13.
Philip Sheppard
NC Chair Final report review task force v2.doc |