<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[comments-whois] RE: WHOIS and Transfer Task Force Reports
Jeff,
I realize that you have been on Thanksgiving holiday, and were offline during
that time. I know that interfered with your delivery of your own submissions on
behalf of your constituency by the deadline established.
However, we have had extensive discussions prior to that regarding
process and timelines. The intent to present the recommendation via a resolution
was discussed in our recent calls. This is a
surprise to the TF. Can you please clarify whom the Registry Constituency
is representing in raising this concern?
Also,
as we have said to others, it is more helpful when comments are specific. Can
you point out the areas which you believe are substantionally different from the
Interim Report so that the TF can respond. That will be really the best way to
ensure that your constitutuency's concerns on behalf of the registrar
constituency are understood.
Regards, Marilyn
Bruce and
Marilyn,
As Chair of the
gTLD Constituency, I have been asked to write to you to formally request that
no action be taken on either the Whois or Transfer Task Force Reports at the
Names Council meeting on December 14th, 2002. This is because we
believe that there has been too little time since the posting of the
respective reports to receive adequate and constructive feedback from the
Internet community as a whole, especially those parts of the community that
are not native English speakers. There have been a number of substantive
changes to both of the reports in response to the first comment
period and these recommended changes need to be digested by the
community.
The gTLD Registry
Constituency deeply appreciates the work that has been done up until this
point on both Task Forces, however, we believe there has not been enough time
to review the Final Report which was just posted on November 30th (Just
15 days prior to the Names Council meeting and just 8 days before comments
were due). There is a lot of substance in these reports even for some of
us that are English speakers and are most familiar with the subject
matter. The final report has resulted in numerous beneficial discussions
throughout the community, including amongst the Registrars (who are arguably
the most impacted by these reports) over the last few days and these should
not be ignored. I believe with a little bit more time, these issues will
be worked out with a solution that a consensus of the Internet community can
get behind.
On a personal
note, as you both know, I serve on the Transfers Task Force and have put in a
lot of hard work into that report along with Ross and Marilyn and the last
thing I want to see is complaints from the Internet community if the NC adopts
the report that it did so in too much haste. In fact, the gTLD
Constituency supports many of the recommendations contained within the
reports, but we are reserving our final position for a time when it is
apparent that these issues have been worked out in other constituencies,
including the Registrar Constituency.
While we recognize
this issue has been debated for a long time now and that we need to find a
solution, we believe the end is close at hand. However, the
gTLD Constituency believes that we need to table any formal action on the
report until the January GNSO Names Council meeting.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Director, Law &
Policy NeuStar, Inc. Loudoun Tech
Center 46000 Center Oak Plaza
Building
X Sterling, VA 20166
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|