<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[comments-whois] RE: WHOIS and Transfer Task Force Reports
Jeff,
this level of detailed response allows the full TF to respond. I think, though,
that your constituency owes the WHOIS TF this courtesy as well. That is the only
way that the TF can evaluate your constituency's concerns.
I know
it is work for the constituency, but important to do... We are having a
discussion on Tuesday on both TF's. Comments by then would be very helpful so
that the WHOIS TF can take the input of the Constiuency into account in its
preparation for the Amsterdam meeting.
Best
regards, Marilyn
Marilyn,
Please do not misunderstand the intent of the Registry Constituency
statement. It was not a request that the TF do anymore work, but merely
a request to respond to the concerns raised that the comment period on the
final report is too short. The entire constituency believes that
delaying the NC action until the January meeting would be in the best
interests of the Internet community.
With
respect to the differences, I am attaching a Redline of the Transfers TF
report from the Interim Report published in October and the Final Report just
published. You will see the abundance of changes (many
substantive). I do not have the time to explain all of them or to do the
same with the WHOIS report. That being said, the Constituency is asking
for one more month to digest all of the changes (again most of which the
Registry Constituency does actually support).
Please let me know if you have any questions.
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
>>>
|