DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [nc-transfer] preparing a status report to the NC

Thanks, Tony, very useful and helpful feedback.

I take your view about the appointment concept -- perhaps the suggestion
could be that each constituency can appoint up to two participants, with the
constituency only having one vote, regardless if they have two participants.
Perhaps this could be examined by the NC as an approach for this task force.

I will look forward to the feedback and views from the ISPCP, as well as
other constituencies. 


-----Original Message-----
From: tony.ar.holmes@bt.com [mailto:tony.ar.holmes@bt.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 4:27 PM
To: mcade@att.com; crusso@verisign.com; nc-transfer@dnso.org;
Michael@palage.com; ross@tucows.com; tim@tmdenton.com;
bbeckwith@verisign.com; ebroitman@register.com
Cc: philip.sheppard@aim.be; cdecock@cw.net; greg_ruth@yahoo.com;
lyric@verio.net; mcfadden@cix.org; harris@cabase.org.ar
Subject: RE: [nc-transfer] preparing a status report to the NC

The ISPCP will certainly discuss the status of the transfer issue during our
meeting tomorrow. Its already quite evident that this requires more debate
in order to move things forward and that a focused approach is required to
achieve this in a timely manner. 

Your proposal to provide an update to the NC in the manner you suggest
offers a pragmatic approach and I would support the continuation of the TF.
At this stage its too early to draw conclusions that would enable any final
recommendations to be put forward. Agreeing a final cut off date for this
work is a must, we can't allow this situation to drag on. It has to be

As for participation, I'm opposed to any attempt to press gang individuals
by asking Philip to appoint someone from Constituencies if they haven't
nominated by the 15th. That just won't work. This is too important to have
people on the TF who either have no interest, or are so busy on other fronts
that they don't have the bandwidth to participate. Any later claims that
those Constituencies took part, and therefore supported the outcome would be
disingenuous. Far better that Philip reminds those who haven't nominated,
they have a very limited chance of influencing the outcome and will not be
looked upon kindly if they decide to take major issue with the output of the
TF after completion of its work. 

Whilst in Marina del Rey the ISPCP will certainly welcome any further
opportunities for discussion.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [SMTP:mcade@att.com]
> Sent:	Sunday, November 11, 2001 4:37 PM
> To:	'Russo, Christine'; Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; 'Transfer TF'; 'Mike
> Palage'; 'Ross Rader'; 'Tim Denton'; Beckwith, Bruce; 'Elana Broitman'
> Cc:	'Philip Sheppard'
> Subject:	[nc-transfer] preparing a status report to the NC
> I am expecting that each of the constituencies would discuss the transfer
> issue in your meetings, at least briefly, since all had representatives on
> the briefing call this past week.  There is a time slot for the Transfer
> issue on the NC agenda.  I do plan to make a report: See below for my
> proposed approach, and give me your feedback. 
> Given the lack of comments and the press of time, regarding the proposed
> draft resolution from many of you, I propose to do a simple status report
> to
> the NC; it could be put in the form of a simpler resolution/recommendation
> to the NC which would primarily describe the status and recommend the
> continuance of the TF, with agreement on it's primary tasks and focus,
> with
> a time frame for conclusion.
> My proposed plan (and I welcome your comments today if possible) is to
> provide a simple status report, including that a briefing was held by
> members of the Registrar Constituency, that a draft resolution was put
> forward, but has not had sufficient discussion within the working TF, and
> that since some constituencies have not yet designated a
> member/representative to the TF at this time, it is therefore still
> formative and  still includes, for informational purposes, all the NC
> members, plus Danny Younger, therefore, I plan to ask the NC chair to
> appoint someone from each of the constituencies if no one from a
> constituency is named by 11/15. IF more time is needed from a specific
> constituency, an exception can be made, but will allow the TF to be
> confirmed in terms of membership. 
> Again, I also plan to recommend to the NC that the TF be established for a
> specific period (3 months or 6 months) with specific tasks, and monthly
> status reports. 
> I am around today, and probably more reachable via cell:  202-255-7348. I
> won't be online again probably until quite late. [sorry about that], but
> will do my best to both answer and return calls to the cell phone.
> I know you are all busy, but am trying to get some sense from the
> Constituency reps of suggested paths forward. 
> Finally, I appreciate the comments which some folks have provided to date,
> but urge you to focus now on what achieves an effective method to achieve
> progress and resolution. 
> FURTHER DISCUSSION OPPORTUNITY: Even for discussion purposes, can we plan
> to
> meet sometime while we are all here, after 11/12?  I've heard from some
> that
> today doesn't work, and 11/12 is very full already.  Bruce, just a
> reminder,
> I haven't seen your posting.  Can you give me an update on when you  might
> be able to conclude that posting? I think the record of the briefing is a
> bit open without your planned submission.  
> Best regards, Marilyn Cade
> P.S. I have copied those who made presentations, or submitted comments,
> plus
> the listserv, to ensure that I don't miss anyone who has participated in
> the
> informational activities to date. This is not an effort to exclude anyone.
> Apologies if I left someone off.  This is why we need to nail down the TF
> membership.  

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>