[nc-transfer] Re: Status on Terms of Reference and Representation
Thanks for the cogent thoughts and proposal.
> Therefore, I propose to modify the work plan to incorporate at least one
> session where the TF will hear from registrants who will be invited to
> participate in a call and asked a standard set of questions in an
> manner. The development of the questions would be a project of the TF, so
> that all can participate and feel it fair. Identifying and recruiting
> participants should be agreed to by the TF and should include appropriate
> outreach. We will deal responsibly with privacy issues, of course.
The Registrar Constituency is primarily concerned with resolving this issue
through the development and ratification of "consensus policy". It is very
clear that unless consensus can be shown and upheld, these efforts will not
be supported by 100% of registrars. If specific registrars dispute the
legitimacy of the policy, then our efforts will be for nought. With this in
mind, it is very clear that we must be able to adequately demonstrate that
the actual views (positive and negative) of registrants and other affected
stakeholders have been taken into account as it relates to these proposals.
A thoughtful deliberation of their needs are critical. This cannot be
achieved if one relies solely on the views of Tucows or Verisign as Milton
has pointed out. Further, we cannot risk that one individual truly
represents the needs of the registrant community. I have talked to several
individuals that feel so badly burned by the existing process that they are
entirely suspicious of anything DNSO related. It is very clear to me that
they will not feel "represented" unless we allow them to directly present
their views & requirements. I believe that the proposal that you table is a
fair way to achieve these goals while balancing the interests of all
involved and our requirement to proceed without undue delay.
My mandate is very clear in this regard and as such, the Registrar
Constituency fully supports this proposal.