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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>]

No apology necessary. Can't say I agree, but I understand.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 4:46 PM
To: tim@godaddy.com; Elana Broitman; Registrar Constituency
Subject: Re: [registrars] FW: Notice about call on Tuesday -


> Perhaps not. But we still want our TF rep to accurately represent the
> "current" consensus of our constituency. Given all that has taken place,
and
> all that has been said, a vote on the motions presented seems necessary to
> ensure that.
>

There is no current consensus of the constituency - there hasn't been for
some time. There has been enough FUD spread around that few, if any, of us
have a clear enough view of the issues to actually make an informed decision
as to what the "will of the constituency is". As a result, its been months
since I've presented the "view of the constituency" and instead relied on
the individual submissions of individual members. The TF has done a
remarkable job of evaluating each of these suggestion (and continues to) in
a search for the consensus of the DNSO.

> These motions may be seen by some as a stall tactic, I don't know. But it
> seems fair to ask for time to explore more recent options. It may not
> happen, but as my Grandfather used to say, "it doesn't hurt to ask."

We've been exploring "recent options" for the last two years. Sometimes it
does hurt to ask - you might want to do a poll on how much political
credibility we have managed to hold on to within the DNSO with our penchant
for wanting to explore recent options. Some parties simply want to put this
issue to bed and run it through a review in six months. That sounds to be
the most prudent course of action at this point - regardless of what the
Interim report says.

While it certainly isn't consensus, the single biggest unified criticism
that I've heard over the last year is "Why is this policy development
process taking so long." To those of you that have asked, we are going
through yet another example.

Tim - apologies if this message sounds short, to a certain degree it is, but
keep in mind that we've invested two years of analysis on this issue - at a
certain point, we need to get off the pot. I submit that we left that point
behind about a year ago.

                       -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: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>; "Elana Broitman"
<ebroitman@register.com>; "Registrar Constituency" <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 5:36 PM
Subject: RE: [registrars] FW: Notice about call on Tuesday -


> >The current report has the broad support of most
> >constituencies - we do not have the leverage to
> >stall that forward movement.
>
> Perhaps not. But we still want our TF rep to accurately represent the
> "current" consensus of our constituency. Given all that has taken place,
and
> all that has been said, a vote on the motions presented seems necessary to
> ensure that.
>
> These motions may be seen by some as a stall tactic, I don't know. But it
> seems fair to ask for time to explore more recent options. It may not
> happen, but as my Grandfather used to say, "it doesn't hurt to ask."
>
> Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 4:02 PM
> To: Elana Broitman; Registrar Constituency
> Subject: Re: [registrars] FW: Notice about call on Tuesday -
>
>
> 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
>
>