- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: DRAFT - Terms of Reference / WLS (Re: Request for a WLS working group)
- From: Thomas Roessler <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:53:18 +0200
- In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Mail-Followup-To: email@example.com
- User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.0i
Please review the attached draft terms of reference ASAP. Note that
I am, for the moment, deliberately leaving the question open _who_
this task force (or working group, or whatever) should be.
The key elements of this draft are these:
- Give priority to those concerns which have already been submitted
to the public (GA and registrars);
- give others an opportunity to submit their concerns during a
short, but reasonable time line;
- authorize the task force to enforce that deadline;
- produce a clear deadline for task force output.
Obviously, these terms of reference would not be compatible with the
Transfer Task Force drafting and finishing its survey first.
However, they are not incompatible with that task force giving WLS
priority for the moment, and just getting the job done.
Thomas Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/
On 2002-04-23 15:01:24 -0400, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
>Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 15:01:24 EDT
>Subject: [ga] Request for a WLS working group
>The ICANN Board has requested that the Names Council coordinate within the
>DNSO a comprehensive review of issues concerning the deletion of domain names
>and possible solutions for those issues and to submit to the Board, no later
>than 10 June 2002, a status report on that review, with the status report to
>include any recommendations (with supporting materials) concerning VeriSign's
>request to modify the .com and .net agreements to allow it to provide a
>wait-listing service, for a fee, as part of its operation of the .com and
>Could you perhaps raise this request within the AOB portion of tomorrow's NC
>conference call? To my knowledge, the Transfers TF has not yet been tasked
>with this mission, and has not undertaken any discussion of WLS (even though
>the Board has indicated that <<the Transfers Task Force within the DNSO has
>undertaken a review of issues raised by deletion practices (including the WLS
>proposal) in the context of its analysis of transfers, and is scheduled to
>submit its final report for public comment in May, so that the Names Council
>can provide a final report to the Board in June).>>
>I don't believe that the Transfers TF is on schedule to release a final
>report in May, nor that its occasional participants can handle both the
>current transfers project and a new project within the requested time frame.
>This would be a good time to create an open working group (remember those?)
>to provide a comprehensive review and discussion. The last major open
>working group (Review) was able to create a comprehensive report within three
>weeks (they commenced on Dec. 23 and had a report ready on schedule by
>January 15). As no task force thus far has been able to accomplish their
>workload in a timely fashion, this would be a good time to return to the use
>of the Working Group so that we can properly honor this request by the Board.
>This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
>Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
Terms of Reference - DNSO Work
Mission and Time Line
The Task Force is instructed to comprehensively review issues
concerning the deletion of domain names and possible solutions for
[Board resolution 02.53; see
In order to achieve this mission, the Task Force is instructed to:
begin to review the concerns published by the registrars'
constituency and the General Assembly concerning the WLS proposal
(and of any other material submitted by constituencies or the GA
before May 5), and post for public comment a recommendation on how
these concerns (if found valid) can be addressed, no later than May
2. based on this review,
and comments received, submit a recommendation to the Names Council
no later than June 3, 2002;
3. subsequently, address
any further concerns or policy improvements identified during its
The Task Force's work during its first work phase is expected to
be based, in particular, on the material listed below:
Nothing in these terms of reference shall be interpreted as
preventing the Task Force from taking into account other material at
any point of time of its work, if it believes this is appropriate in
order to help the Task Force accomplish its mission. However, the
Task Force is explicitly authorized to defer until after June 3 the
review of any material received from constituencies after May 5.