Re: [registrars] FW: Notice about call on Tuesday -

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

Tomorrow's call is an open "listening" call from the standpoint of the TF -
I require no instructions for that call.

Second, as I mentioned to you last week, the motions are largely out of
order due the procedural issues that I flagged.

Third, what is the work that you mention below regarding the "solution
proposal"? If you are referencing the Tucows proposal, it has not received
much support from the membership (ie - no comments) since it was tabled. If
it stands in the way of closing off the issues as it relates to the DNSO, I
will withdraw it. It has not been forwarded to the TF due to the procedural
comments received in Shanghai.

Lastly, to directly answer the question that you put forward to Michael -
the process is moving forward as outlined because we are but one
constituency in the DNSO. The current report has the broad support of most
constituencies - we do not have the leverage to stall that forward movement.


                       -rwr




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

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
----- Original Message -----
From: "Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@register.com>
To: "Registrar Constituency" <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 4:46 PM
Subject: [registrars] FW: Notice about call on Tuesday -


> I haven't heard back from Michael regarding the voting on the motions made
> last week.  Can anyone else in the Exec. Ctee. let us know what is going
on
> with voting on the motions (all of which were seconded)?  Tomorrow there
is
> a Transfers TF call, and given that several of the motions related to this
> issue, Ross should have the constituency's instructions before
participating
> on that call as our rep.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elana Broitman
> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 8:45 AM
> To: 'michael@palage.com'
> Subject: FW: Notice about call on Tuesday -
>
>
> what is the status of our motion on the transfers TF?  why is this moving
> forward despite the good work being done on the "solution" proposal?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 5:03 PM
> To: bbeckwith@verisign.com; chily@onlineNIC.com; paul@interneters.co.uk;
> marcus.faure@coreuic.org; huangbl@china-channel.com;
> ken@interneters.co.uk; lorraine@momentous.com; rob@momentus.com;
> paul.stahura@enom.com; dwmaher@attglobal.net; matt@enom.com;
> rayk@snampnames.com; adamwe@snapnames.com; maruyama@nic.ad.jp;
> cshaban@tagi.com; jeff.neuman@neustar.biz; jane.nutimear@twobirds.com;
> jay@nameintel.com; Elana Broitman; jse@adamspat.com; ross@tucows.com
> Cc: alexander@svensson.de; bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au;
> dsafran@nixonpeabody.com; Grant.Forsyth@team.telstraclear.co.nz;
> halloran@icann.org; james.love@cptech.org; Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us;
> marty@schwimmerlegal.com; mcade@att.com; metalitz@iipa.com;
> roessler@does-not-exist.org; roessler-mobile@does-not-exist.info;
> toutan@icann.org
> Subject: Notice about call on Tuesday
>
>
>
>
> By this time, you will have heard from Ross Rader and Jeff Neuman
regarding
> a cll with the Transfers Task Force on Tuesday, 11/12/02, 12:30 p.m. -
2:30
> p.m. EST.
>
> IF you haven't heard back, you can email me on my att.com address/noted in
> cc above.
>
> the call is the promised follow up to the Sunday impromptu Shanghai
dialogue
>
> with the Registrars and Registries.
>
> The public comment site will be closed in order to begin the process of
> incorporating comments into the Task Force's work; however, we made a
> commitment to you to include your comments. You have at least three
> mechanisms: input through your designated representatives; the call noted
> above/any follow on written submissions you provide within the next few
days
>
> after the call; and finally, if you believe that you need a further
> mechanism, you can email the chair at mcade@att.com for forwarding to the
> Transfer Task Force list.
>
> A few of the registrars submitted a letter regarding their
> objections/concerns regarding auto ack. I invited them in the Shanghai
> meeting to discuss this with the TF at that time. Those signatories in
> attendance believed it important to have all signatories present before
> commenting. I invite you/as signatories to that letter, to accept an
> invitation to discuss your concerns, and recommendations, with the TF next
> Tuesday. Please let me know if you accept this invitation, and I'll
> designate a 20 minute period for this particular discussion.
>
> The Task Force is making itself very available to listen to views and
> recommendations about improvements in its recommendations before
finalizing
> its recommendations.  In the Shanghai meeting, and in earlier posts, I've
> noted  we are required to document "reasoned objections".  Constructive
> suggestions, which can improve the transfer process are welcomed by the
Task
>
> Force.
>
> I will offer one other reminder to the Constituencies: it is important for
> you that users find the processes which you adopt also meet their needs,
are
>
> reliable, secure, predictable, and not confusing. I know that you know
that,
>
> but I ask that you think, as you provide your comments, what, really, is
the
>
> registrants experience. In addition to listening to you, the Task Force
has
> an obligation and responsiblity to listen to the users/registrants as
well.
> We are also doing that.
>
> I am sending this notice to you individually because I promised, as chair,
> that we would undertake further outreach to you. It is a supplement to the
> announcement of your representatives to the Task Force.
>
> best regards,
>
> Marilyn Cade,Chair
>
>
>
>
> n
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus