DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

RE: [nc-transfer] status report to the NC and resolution

Thanks Marilyn.  I think that most of us would appreciate a progress report
from the Task Force.

As a matter of process, I might point out that it is not customary for the
Council to take actions as simple as extending the term of a Task Force
through a formal resolution with nine Whereas clauses.  We have tended to be
a lot more streamlined than that for two reasons:  

First, our time  --especially at this meeting-- is pretty limited and
spending it debating the text of detailed whereas clauses has not previously
been a high priority for the Council.  I don't think it is today; and

Second, we've tended to be more pragmatic than rhetorical in doing things
like extending the lifetime of a Task Force.

Procedurally,  we should be cautious about beginning a practice of adding
numerous Whereas clauses to fairly simple administrative actions like this


Roger J. Cochetti
Senior Vice-President & Chief Policy Officer
(202) 973-6600

-----Original Message-----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:mcade@att.com]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 3:06 AM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; 'tony.ar.holmes@bt.com'; crusso@verisign.com;
nc-transfer@dnso.org; Michael@palage.com; ross@tucows.com;
tim@tmdenton.com; bbeckwith@verisign.com; ebroitman@register.com; 'Grant
Forsyth'; 'richard tindal'
Cc: philip.sheppard@aim.be; mcfadden@cix.org; harris@cabase.org.ar
Subject: [nc-transfer] status report to the NC and resolution
Importance: High

Folks, in keeping with my discussion with many of you, and input from a few,
I have substantially modified the resolution into a status report and
recommendation to the NC to continue the task force on transfers, with a
short time frame of 3 or 6 months. I am still calling it a resolution,

I have also addressed a concern one participant raised with me that it is
difficult for some constituencies to chose only one representative.  I have
also addressed a further concern of some that there is a slowness to name a
representative by others and that is holding up progress, so to speak.  I
provided an opt out; should any constituency chose not to name participants,
that will be noted and the TF can move forward.

I hope you will discuss this in your constituencies so that we can discuss
this effectively in the NC and reach agreement on how to move forward.

I will get paper copies of the resolution made early tomorrow at the hotel
and will have them with me in the Peninsula Room.

Input electronically won't reach me unfortunately and I apologize for that. 

Again, I have combined the language of a status report with a recommendation
action by the NC.  I welcome your input and suggestions on any language
changes which you believe can be supported by the majority of the NC in the
discussion. Let's try to exchange ideas on modifications before the NC if we
can so that we can have a productive discussion in the NC.

We have been working under time pressures, and I appreciate the frustration
expressed by one or two participants. Hopefully, this approach addresses
those concerns.  

We aren't done by any means -- but if we can agree on the resolution then
the TF can continue its work.  

I am happy to continue as chair of the TF but must count on the hard work of
the participants from the Constituencies to ensure effective input,
consideration, and process which reflects a balanced outcome.

Best regards,


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