[council] GA summary 2002-04
This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list's discussions during
the 4th week of 2002. List archives are available online at
feel free to forward this summary as you believe to be appropriate.
No formal votes are going on. However, signatures are being
collected for (and against) a possible GA minority position to the
.org task force's report. See below for details.
Task Force News
In a private message sent last Tuesday, the former chair of the GA,
Danny Younger, indicated that he would not continue to participate
in any task forces where he was representing the GA in his property
as the GA chair.
As a consequence of that, Alexander Svensson will represent the GA
on the IDN task force (in his capacity as the GA's alternative
chair), and Thomas Roessler will represent the GA on the WHOIS task
force (in his capacity as the GA's chair). For the whois task
force, Abel Wisman and Kristy McKee have offered their valuable
help (this task force has to wade through a lot of questionnaires).
Thomas and Kristy both participated in a WHOIS task force telephone
conference held on January 28.
(i) WLS and deleted domain handling. This topic lost a lot of
momentum last week. The most notable posting on this came from Ron
Wiener of Snapnames, who posted a "speculator-specific pricing
analysis" of the WLS proposal. According to this paper's
conclusion, "the evidence shows that, like all rational actors,
speculators do pay the market rate for secondary domain names, for
subscriptions to the WLS-like SnapBack service, and for preferential
access to registrars' connections - on average, about $40-$80. The
WLS will have little impact on the price speculators pay".
Abel Wisman has volunteered to set up and lead a drafting group to
try to formulate a GA consensus position on this topic.
(ii) dot-org. The dot-org task force's report has been accepted by
the names council, and a public comment period starting January 18,
and ending on February 1, was announced. Comments are to be sent to
<firstname.lastname@example.org>. Also, minority views on the report are
invited from DNSO constituencies during the same period. Comments
will be forwarded to the ICANN board along with the report.
Bret Fausett asked whether this is the last opportunity to comment
on the report before the ICANN board decides on dot-org, replacing
the normal ICANN-wide comment period, or whether it augments that
opportunity for comment.
Marc Schneiders, who represented the GA on the dot-org task force,
posted a slightly revised version of his supplementary report, which
emphasizes that the task force's decision of making .org
unrestricted for new and old registrants alike is supported. There
were no follow-ups to this message.
Based on this, Alexander Svensson produced a proposal for GA
members' comments on dot-org, which can be signed until Friday,
15:00 CET. Please send statements of support (or opposition) to
(iii) The GA representative on the transfer task force, Dan
Steinberg, sent out a call for input (and, if needed, participation)
for a telephone conference with Louis Touton. The teleconference
will deal with the problem of "apparent authority": Who has
"apparent authority" to bind a registrant when registrant's domain
is to be transferred? Questions and wishes for participation were
to be submitted until midnight Eastern time, Sunday, January 27th.
The actual telephone conference will happen on Friday, February 1,
(iv) Chuck Gomes sent in a thoughtful article on working groups vs.
task forces as tools in the DNSO consensus process. Recommended
(v) Andy Duff (of new.net) pointed to some Business Constituency
(vi) NC chair period of office. In a posting to the GA and others,
the Jeff Neuman (acting on behalf of the gTLD constituency)
expressed concern on the "recent suggestion that the NC rules of
procedure should be amended to (a) extend the six-month period that
each NC chair is in office, and (b) allow the chair in office to
continue to serve until a successor is appointed". The gTLD
constituency demands that "the Names Council should not proceed at
this time on this expeditious time frame. [...] The current election
should and must proceed, regardless of the action the NC decides to
take in connection with th emotion." Jeff also argues, it seems,
that any new rules should not be applied to the NC chair who is
currently being elected.
Thomas Roessler <email@example.com>