[registrars] FW: [nc-transfer] A Different View of the 12 Questions Before the Transfer Task Force

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

Mark McFadden has graciously shared the form of questions that he shared
with his constituency. While it might be too late to use them to provide
me with feedback, I am sure our NC reps and ExComm would find your
answers useful. Of course, I too would be interested in the answers ;)



                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow
 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nc-transfer@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-transfer@dnso.org] On
Behalf Of Mark McFadden
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 1:43 PM
To: nc-transfer@dnso.org
Subject: [nc-transfer] A Different View of the 12 Questions Before the
Transfer Task Force
Importance: Low


Colleagues:

This is a re-working of the questions put forward by the DNSO
Secretariat that I forwarded to my constituency.  I don't know if they
are helpful, but they frame the questions individually and in sequence.
I used this to discuss and inform my constituency of the matters before
us in the upcoming conference call.  In no way am I suggesting that
these are an alternative to the official list put forward by the
Secretariat, I just used this as a means to communicate with my
constituency.  In each case, the only available votes are "yes," "no,"
and "abstain."

Mark

Mark McFadden
ISP and Connectivity Providers Constituency, ICANN DNSO

------------

Question 1:
Should the ICANN board move with all haste to implement and actively
enforce the proposed Redemptions Grace Period for Deleted Names policy
and practice?

Question 2:
Should the ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to amend its agreement
to enable it to introduce its proposed WLS?

Question 3:
Should the ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to trial the WLS for 12
months?

Question 4:
Does your constituency support the task force recommendation to deny the
WLS proposal?

-------------

Should the ICANN board not accept the policy recommendations noted above
and grant Verisign's request for a change to its agreement and a 12
month trial of its WLS, we would alternatively recommend that WLS be
approved with conditions:

Question 5:
Should the board not accept the policy recommendations above (in
questions 1 through 4), should the introduction of WLS be dependent on
the implementation and proven (for not less than three months) practice
envisaged in the proposed Redemption Grace Period for Deleted Names
policy and practice and the establishment of a standard deletion period?

Question 6:
Should the board not accept the policy recommendations above (in
questions 1 through 4), should any interim Grace Period have all the
characteristics and conditions of the Redemption Grace Period now in
implementation?

------------

Note:  
Several Constituencies remain concerned that a standard deletion period
be established and implemented. Some TF members believe that this could
be considered separately from WLS.

Question 7:
Should the board not accept the policy recommendations above (in
questions 1 through 4), should standard Deletions should be established
at same time as WLS and implemented before WLS?

Question 8: 
Should the board not accept the policy recommendations above (in
questions 1 through 4), should standard deletions should be established,
but need not be in place before WLS is implemented?

Question 9:
Should the board not accept the policy recommendations above (in
questions 1 through 4), should standard deletions be considered
separately?

Question 10:
Should the board not accept the policy recommendations above (in
questions 1 through 4), should the WLS should include a requirement that
notice be provided by the Registry (through the registrar) to the
existing registrant of a domain name when a WLS option is taken out
against that registrant's domain name?

Question 11:
Should the board not accept the policy recommendations above (in
questions 1 through 4), should the WLS include a requirement for full
transparency as to who has placed a WLS option on a domain name and the
registrar that actions the option?

Question 12:
Should the board not accept the policy recommendations above (in
questions 1 through 4), based on the above two points (notice and
transparency), should the price for the WLS be set at the same amount as
the current registry fee for a registration - the cost of the WLS
function being no more, an probably less, than a registration - plus any
additional costs to "notice and transparency', based on Verisign's
provision of such validating information on such costs to the
Board/Staff?