RE: [council] Revised WLS Proposal (fwd) BC FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO CHICOINE REC.
Sounds fine. While I am most interested in getting into the substantive
issues which may require a more focused group of the NC rather than the
entire NC, I wanted to quickly address the procedural issue of how this
proposal is going forward without the NC. If people feel this is not DNSO
policy making, than it is of course none of our business, but it struck me
as something the NC should be involved in.
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 3:07 PM
To: 'Chicoine, Caroline G.'; 'email@example.com'
Subject: RE: [council] Revised WLS Proposal (fwd) BC FRIENDLY AMENDMENT
TO CHICOINE REC.
As a BC rep, I support adding the topic of "deletes" to the discussion for
the agenda for the NC call.
However, I offer a friendly amendment to Caroline's recommendation.
The BC membership has just discussed within our constituency the need to
recommend to other constituencies and to the NC that we need to understand
the issues more fully related to "deleted names" and how/whether any changes
related to the handling of deleted names represents "policy", and what the
best approaches might be to further understand the issue(s) and various
Accordingly, I offer a friendly amendment to Caroline's suggestion:
Rather than a presentation about a proposal from one entity [Verisign] for
a service related to "deleted names", we recommend that it would be more
productive for the NC to have a briefing about the "issues related to
Such a presentation should be structured to include the ICANN staff; and
could include Verisign and probably one or two other perspectives, including
the Registrar Constituency in the presentation.
As far as I can determine from reading the publicly available information
about the Verisign proposal, it changes how names are handled in terms of
putting them into a Wait Listing Service, rather than returning them to the
registry. Some in the BC believe that this is a change in policy; others
have other questions and views. In general, we believe that more
information and discussion is needed about the proposed change. We are not
commenting on the proposed service offering, but have questions about the
policy implications and implications for "users" [aka: registrants].
At this point, as a BC rep, I support adding "deletes and related issues" to
the NC agenda and suggest that we quickly assess how best to 1) ensure that
there is a short presentation/statement about the issues -- probably from
ICANN staff 2)short informational statements from "knowledge sources",
[including Verisign, the Registrar Constituency; others?] 3)Next Steps
I offer this amendment because I think it unusual that the NC would invite a
single entity to provide the background and issue briefing, especially when
they have a "business proposal" involved. In our role as NC, we should seek
broad input and information, and seek then to assess the implications for
policy changes, if any, etc. It may be the view of the NC that this service
as proposed doesn't represent policy changes. The BC's present thinking of
its members who have provided input indicates that the BC does believe it is
possible that policy changes are implicated.
I hope you can support my friendly amendment, Caroline, to your
recommendation. I think the outcome would be to have a presentation for the
NC which was probably 3 parts, but still be very short and concise.
From: Chicoine, Caroline G. [mailto:CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 3:52 PM
Subject: FW: [council] Revised WLS Proposal (fwd)
I would like to add a discussion of this to the agenda for the Feb call. If
it makes sense, perhaps Chuck could be invited to provide a brief summary.
I guess the question I am asking myself is "Is this DNSO policy making of
which the NC, rather than Verisign, should be managing the consensus?"
Also, I note that we received Chuck's email on the 29th and it is my
understanding that the deadline for providing comments is Feb 8th which only
gives people only 10 days to respond." If I have read it wrong, could
someone please advise what the deadline is and if not, do we think this is a
reasonable period of time to comment?
From: Cary Karp [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 2:32 PM
Subject: [council] Revised WLS Proposal (fwd)
Forwarded at the request of Chuck Gomes
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 11:45:55 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <email@example.com>
To: Cary Karp <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Revised WLS Proposal
I have attached two documents related to the wait listing service
proposal submitted by VGRS to the Registrars Constituency on
December 30, 2001: (1) a revised proposal based on feedback received
from registrars and other interested parties; (2) a document titled,
'Justification for a Registry-based Wait Listing Service.' I would
like to call your attention to the recommended procedures and
guidelines for questions and feedback that are contained toward the
beginning of the revised proposal. I would also like to note that
the second document contains responses to the four points made by
the Registrars Constituency in the official feedback provided to the
initial proposal. It also contains responses to some of the other
major issues raised with regard to the proposed service.
Vice President, Policy & Compliance
VeriSign Global Registry Services