I would suggest acouple of changes to Ross'
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
Subject: [nc-imptransfer] Proposed Charter Documents
I would like to request that we include a discussion of
proposal on tomorrow's agenda. I'm
sure that all of you would agree that
order to meet the objectives that have been set forth by the NC
for this 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
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
tomorrows call in order that we can
proceed with our work quickly and
Note that with the exception of the mandate, all of these
items are 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 a
Please do not hesitate to drop me a note if you have any
require clarification on this
GNSO Transfer Policy Implementation Analysis
The mandate for this working group is defined in the
resolution which was adopted by the
DNSO Names Council on December 14,
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
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
The Names Council will then meet to discuss the final
Board report in
its meeting in February and the
final Board report will be forwarded
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 policy
and it will be suitable for
inclusion in the report which will become
Proposed Terms of Reference:
1. To determine analyse the feasibility of the
recommendations of the DNSO
NC Task Force on Inter-Registrar Transfers
formulate a report detailing the findings of the analysis which
will include all details concerning whether or not the
recommendations are feasible.
3. To present this report and all supporting
documentation to the Names
consideration and inclusion in the Final Report of the
Transfers Task Force no later than January 30, 2003.
01/08/03 - Introductory conference call, confirmation of
participants, election of chair, review
and acceptance of TOR and
establishment of feasibility criteria, call for analysis.
01/15/03 - Call for analysis closes.
01/18/03 - Group review of analyses presented, feedback
additional concerns solicited.
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.
Final meeting/teleconferenceImpComm Adoption/Rejection
01/30/03 - Presented to Names Council for consideration.
Note: "Call for analysis" is a request for those that
wish to table
feasibility recommendations for
review and consideration by the ImpComm
"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the
shore like an
Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal: http://www.byte.org/heathrow