RE: [nc-imptransfer] Proposed Charter Documents

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@veriSign.com>]

Title: Message

I would qualify Jeff and David's positions as follows: To the extent that alternative approaches make it more realistic that the overall proposal can be implemented, they should be recommended by the ITF for consideration by the TTF and/or the Council.  We need to keep in mind that whatever is decided must be incorporated into amendments that registrars must agree to, so anything that can be done to increase the chances of broad registrar support should be encouraged.  Otherwise we will all be spinning our wheels and end up in a situation where registrars will not agree to modify their agreements.  We are not just talking about policy issues; we are also talking about existing contractual terms that both parties in the contracts must agree to.

 

Chuck Gomes
VeriSign Com Net Registry

-----Original Message-----
From: Safran, David [mailto:DSafran@nixonpeabody.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 3:49 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; Elana Broitman; ross@tucows.com; nc-imptransfer@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [nc-imptransfer] Proposed Charter Documents

I agree with Jeff that "consideration of - alternative or additional transfer proposals " is outside of the scope of the Implementation TF.  Should the ITF find it not be practical to implement any specific aspect of the TTF's recommendations, the aspects found to be impractical should be referred back to the TTF for assessment.

David S. Safran Nixon Peabody LLP 8180 Greensboro Drive Suite 800 McLean, VA 22102 Office:  703.770.9315 Fax:  703.770.9400 dsafran@nixonpeabody.com

This email message and any attachments are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately reply to the sender and delete the message from your email system. Thank you.

-----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us]
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 3:39 PM
To: 'Elana Broitman'; ross@tucows.com; nc-imptransfer@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [nc-imptransfer] Proposed Charter Documents

Elana,

 

I agree with your first statement, but with respect to analyzing other proposals, I believe unfortunately that me be outside our scope.  I think our job is to analyze the final report only and its implementation -- and not to rehash ground that has already been covered.  If I am wrong, please let me know.

 

I will note that the old VeriSign proposal has a lot of overlap with things in the TF Final Report.

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Elana Broitman [mailto:ebroitman@register.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 3:23 PM
To: ross@tucows.com; nc-imptransfer@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [nc-imptransfer] Proposed Charter Documents

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.

Regards, Elana

-----Original Message-----
From: ross@tucows.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 3:03 PM
To: nc-imptransfer@dnso.org
Subject: [nc-imptransfer] Proposed Charter Documents

Bruce/All,

I would like to request that we include a discussion of this charter
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
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 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, during
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
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
group ;)

Please do not hesitate to drop me a note if you have any questions or
require clarification on this proposal.

-rwr

---Proposed Charter---

GNSO Transfer Policy Implementation Analysis Committee

Mandate:

The mandate for this working group is defined in the following
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 November.

The Names Council will form an implementation analysis committee which
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 report in
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
Janeiro.

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
the Board report."

Proposed Terms of Reference:

1. To determine analyse the feasibility of the twenty-nine policy
recommendations of the DNSO NC Task Force on Inter-Registrar Transfers
2. To formulate a report detailing the findings of the analysis which
will 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 the
Transfers Task Force no later than January 30, 2003.

Proposed Milestones:

01/08/03 - Introductory conference call, confirmation of final
participants, election of chair, review and acceptance of TOR and
Milestones, establishment of feasibility criteria, call for analysis.
01/15/03 - Call for analysis closes.
01/18/03 - Group review of analyses presented, feedback gathered,
additional concerns solicited.
01/23/03 - Draft Final Report completed, reviewed as group.
01/26/03 - Second review of Draft Final Report, final considerations
worked into draft.
01/27/03 - Final Report completed, tabled with ImpComm for adoption.
01/29/03 - 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
to do so.

                       -rwr

"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal: http://www.byte.org/heathrow

logo_824.gif