[registrars] Ghana meeting, discussion of deletes as policy

["Timothy Denton" <tim@tmdenton.com>]

Greetings Registrars:

This is for your information. No position has been taken by your executive
committee on this at this time other than to forward it for your attention.

1. The purpose of this email is to lay before you a series of emails which
deal with the issue of Wait List Service. Circulating this series of
connected emails will to bring you up to speed on developments in WLS.

2. The idea being advanced (by the senders of these emails) is to start the
process of transferring the issue from one in which Verisign Registry
dominates the rpocess to one where it becomes a DNSO Names Council issue,
and a matter of policy.

3. The series of emails is as follows, from first to last.
3.1 29 January Chuck Gomes to Cary Karp, initiating the process by attaching
proposals for WLS;
3.2 Caroline Chicoine to the DNSO proposing that the DNSO Names Council
discuss this issue at their February call, and lamenting the little time
avaialble to comment on the Verisign proposals.
3.3 and 3.4 Marilyn Cade of the business constituency making a friendly
amendment to Chicoine's suggestion, proposing that someone from the ICANN
staff, Verisign, and others brief the Names Council on the WLS proposals,
with Registrar Constituency present (please read the details, too many to
summarize here)

The essence of Marilyn's suggestion is:
"We invite comment/input from other constituencies on your interest in
joining us in creating such a discussion opportunity as a separate meeting,
for the constituencies, in Ghana."



Timothy Denton, BA,BCL
Secretary, ICANN-Registrars Constituency
37 Heney Street
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada K1N 5V6
www.tmdenton.com
1-613-789-5397 Ottawa
1-819-842-2238 North Hatley
tmdenton@magma.ca

-----Original Message-----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:mcade@att.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 11:04 PM
To: Milton; Y.J.; Vany; Pdeblanc; Elisabeth Porteneuve; Steve Metalitz;
Tony Holmes; Antonio Harris; Mike Palage; Tim Denton; Jeff Neuman; Greg
Ruth
Cc: Caroline; Grant Forsyth; Philip Sheppard; Louis Touton
Subject: Ghana discussion re deletes


Dear colleague:

The BC has discussed the concept of a cross constituency discussion on
"deletes" for the Ghana meeting, in a face to face opportunity to learn more
about the various issues, and views on the issue.   A separate
recommendation has been made to add the item to the NC call on 2/14;
however, that discussion is unlikely to fully address all informational
aspects of this issue.

We invite comment/input from other constituencies on your interest in
joining us in creating such a discussion opportunity as a separate meeting,
for the constituencies, in Ghana.  This is outside of any NC discussions,
and is intended to be informational for constituency members who attend
Ghana.

If you are interested in either helping to plan such a meeting, or believe
that your constituency has members who would be interested in presenting,
please let me know. At present, I am acting as the BC rapporteur on this
issue as we seek to better understand it.

If we get sufficient interest, then we will reserve a room and develop an
agenda for the meeting.

Regards, Marilyn Cade, on behalf of the BC
-----Original Message-----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 4:13 PM
To: 'Mike Palage'; 'Tim Denton'; 'Jeff Neuman'; 'Steve Metalitz'
Cc: 'Caroline'; 'Grant Forsyth'; 'Philip Sheppard'; 'Tony Holmes'
Subject: FW: [council] Revised WLS Proposal (fwd) BC FRIENDLY AMENDMENT
TO CHICOINE REC.


Since you are not on the NC and might not see this until later, I am
providing a courtesy copy to you as FYI, in your role as execommittees to
Registrars and IPC.  I am sure your elected reps will share my posting to
the NC with you when they see it, but it could be delayed due to the fact
they might not be online over the weekend. The sole purpose for forwarding
this is to provide you with a "heads up".

The BC would prefer to see the issue of deletes better understood by the NC,
rather than having a proposal review of one of the providers be the sole
source of information.  We believe that information should come from the
ICANN staff as well as other parties so that a frank and open and unbiased
discussion related to policy implications can take place.

We hope you can support such an approach.

Best regards, Marilyn

-----Original Message-----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 4:07 PM
To: 'Chicoine, Caroline G.'; 'council@dnso.org'
Subject: RE: [council] Revised WLS Proposal (fwd) BC FRIENDLY AMENDMENT
TO CHICOINE REC.




As a BC rep, I support adding the topic of "deletes"  to the discussion for
the agenda for the NC call.

However, I offer a friendly amendment to Caroline's recommendation.

The BC membership has just discussed within our constituency the need to
recommend to other constituencies and to the NC that we need to understand
the issues more fully related to "deleted names" and how/whether any changes
related to the handling of deleted names represents "policy", and what the
best approaches might be to further understand the issue(s) and various
perspectives.

Accordingly, I offer a friendly amendment to Caroline's suggestion:

Rather than a presentation about a proposal from one entity [Verisign]  for
a service related to "deleted names", we recommend that it would be more
productive for the NC to have a briefing about the "issues related to
deleted names."

Such a presentation should be structured to include the ICANN staff; and
could include Verisign and probably one or two other perspectives, including
the Registrar Constituency in the presentation.

As far as I can determine from reading the publicly available information
about the Verisign proposal, it changes how names are handled in terms of
putting them into a Wait Listing Service, rather than returning them to the
registry.  Some in the BC believe that this is a change in policy; others
have other questions and views.  In general, we believe that more
information and discussion is needed about the proposed change. We are not
commenting on the proposed service offering, but have questions about the
policy implications and implications for "users" [aka: registrants].

At this point, as a BC rep, I support adding "deletes and related issues" to
the NC agenda and suggest that we quickly assess how best to 1) ensure that
there is a short presentation/statement about the issues -- probably from
ICANN staff 2)short informational statements from "knowledge sources",
[including Verisign, the Registrar Constituency; others?]  3)Next Steps
Discussion

I offer this amendment because I think it unusual that the NC would invite a
single entity to provide the background and issue briefing, especially when
they have a "business proposal" involved. In our role as NC, we should seek
broad input and information, and seek then to assess the implications for
policy changes, if any, etc. It may be the view of the NC that this service
as proposed doesn't represent policy changes. The BC's present thinking of
its members who have provided input indicates that the BC does believe it is
possible that policy changes are implicated.

I hope you can support my friendly amendment, Caroline, to your
recommendation. I think the outcome would be to have a presentation for the
NC which was probably 3 parts, but still be very short and  concise.

Regards, Marilyn

-----Original Message-----
From: Chicoine, Caroline G. [mailto:CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 3:52 PM
To: 'council@dnso.org'
Subject: FW: [council] Revised WLS Proposal (fwd)


I would like to add a discussion of this to the agenda for the Feb call.  If
it makes sense, perhaps Chuck could be invited to provide a brief summary.

I guess the question I am asking myself is "Is this DNSO policy making of
which the NC, rather than Verisign, should be managing the consensus?"
Also, I note that we received Chuck's email on the 29th and it is my
understanding that the deadline for providing comments is Feb 8th which only

gives people only 10 days to respond."  If I have read it wrong, could
someone please advise what the deadline is and if not, do we think this is a
reasonable period of time to comment?

-----Original Message-----
From: Cary Karp [mailto:ck@nic.museum]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 2:32 PM
To: council@dnso.org
Subject: [council] Revised WLS Proposal (fwd)


Forwarded at the request of Chuck Gomes

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 11:45:55 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
To: Cary Karp <ck@nic.museum>
Subject: Revised WLS Proposal

I have attached two documents related to the wait listing service
proposal submitted by VGRS to the Registrars Constituency on
December 30, 2001: (1) a revised proposal based on feedback received
from registrars and other interested parties; (2) a document titled,
'Justification for a Registry-based Wait Listing Service.' I would
like to call your attention to the recommended procedures and
guidelines for questions and feedback that are contained toward the
beginning of the revised proposal. I would also like to note that
the second document contains responses to the four points made by
the Registrars Constituency in the official feedback provided to the
initial proposal. It also contains responses to some of the other
major issues raised with regard to the proposed service.

Chuck Gomes
Vice President, Policy & Compliance
VeriSign Global Registry Services