I would suggest acouple of changes to Ross' proposal:
a) the 1/15 date should slide to allow for more time for
analysis. This is the key task for us and should not be rushed.
I'd rather see us compress the final review.
b) analysis of the feasibility of the implementation should
include comparison to - and consideration of - alternative or additional
transfer proposals such as that proposed by the VGRS registry as an efficient
tool for the committee to utilize.
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 3:03
Subject: [nc-imptransfer] Proposed Charter Documents
I would like to request that we include a discussion of this
proposal on tomorrow's agenda. I'm sure that
all of you would agree that
that in order to meet the
objectives that have been set forth by the NC
group, we will need to have a clear understanding of what it is
we have been tasked to do and when we need to go it by. As
this is our
first call, I'm not sure if someone else
has been tasked by our interim
Chair to come up with a
similar proposal or not, so in the absence of
information to the contrary, I offer the following contribution.
It would be my intention to agree upon this, or revised text,
tomorrows call in order that we can proceed
with our work quickly and
effectively. Note that with
the exception of the mandate, all of these
up for grabs and purely intended to act as a focal point for
our discussion. If it needs to change, then we should change it as
Please do not hesitate to drop me a note if you have any
require clarification on this
GNSO Transfer Policy Implementation Analysis Committee
The mandate for this working group is defined in the
resolution which was adopted by the DNSO
Names Council on December 14,
2002 in Amsterdam
Netherlands by a unanimous vote of the Council.
"The Names Council accepts the policy recommendations that
were in the
transfer Task Force Report of 30
The Names Council will form an implementation analysis
will comprise of the Registries and
Registrars with ICANN staff and user
liaisons from the
transfer task force.
That it will complete its analysis by 30 January 2003
The Names Council will then meet to discuss the final Board
its meeting in February and the final Board
report will be forwarded
with the aim to reach ICANN
Board 30 days prior to the meeting in Rio de
The report will present the findings on the feasibility of the
and it will be suitable for inclusion in the
report which will become
the Board report."
Proposed Terms of Reference:
1. To determine analyse the feasibility of the twenty-nine
recommendations of the DNSO NC Task Force on
2. To formulate a report
detailing the findings of the analysis which
include all details concerning whether or not the policy
recommendations are feasible.
3. To present
this report and all supporting documentation to the Names
Council for consideration and inclusion in the Final Report of
Transfers Task Force no later than January 30,
01/08/03 - Introductory conference call, confirmation of
participants, election of chair, review and
acceptance of TOR and
Milestones, establishment of
feasibility criteria, call for analysis.
Call for analysis closes.
01/18/03 - Group review of
analyses presented, feedback gathered,
01/23/03 - Draft Final Report
completed, reviewed as group.
01/26/03 - Second review
of Draft Final Report, final considerations
01/27/03 - Final Report completed, tabled
with ImpComm for adoption.
01/29/03 - Final
01/30/03 - Presented to Names Council for consideration.
Note: "Call for analysis" is a request for those that wish to
feasibility recommendations for review and
consideration by the ImpComm
to do so.
"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore
Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal: http://www.byte.org/heathrow