RE: Clarification requested from NSI (Was "Re: [nc-transfer] Transfer Task Force Consultation Calls Schedule")

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

Ross,

It is possible that I misunderstood the request received from Rick Wesson,
but I understood it to be a proposal for what I had communicated as an
option we would consider pursuing.  That was a combination of what was then
called the "parallel registry" and some continuation of the existing batch
delete pools.

You I believe will recall that after the delete group carried on discussion
of what ended up being 4 proposed ideas, I posted a response with my
analysis after consulting with our technical and business teams and stated
that we would be willing to consider a combination of the "parallel
registry" and the existing three pool solution.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 8:24 AM
> To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; Juliano,Marie M - LGA; Roger Cochetti
> (E-mail); Louis Touton (E-mail); Dan Halloran (E-mail); 
> Thomas Roessler
> (E-mail); Alexander Svensson (E-mail); Chuck Gomes (E-mail); 
> Transfer TF
> (E-mail)
> Cc: Glen (E-mail)
> Subject: Clarification requested from NSI (Was "Re: [nc-transfer]
> Transfer Task Force Consultation Calls Schedule")
> 
> 
> Chuck,
> 
> A quick question pertaining to some of the contents of your slide
> presentation.
> 
> One of the slides states that Network Solutions received a "Request by
> Registrars Constituency for a WLS proposal ". Can you please 
> clarify this? I
> was under the impression the your firm received a request 
> from Constituency
> for a proposal that dealt with the "CNO Batch Delete 
> Process". As you and
> your firm has stated many times, the WLS proposal was never 
> intended to
> solve the batch delete issue, but that it might help out in 
> some incidental
> way. As such, it would be inappropriate for your firm to 
> characterize the
> registrar constituency request as being in any way related to the "WLS
> proposal". 
> (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01504.html)
> 
> Also, for some background prior to the call, can you please 
> provide the TF
> (or perhaps this is something that you can do on the call today and
> tomorrow) with some background concerning your outreach efforts to the
> registrar community? The polling numbers that you present are 
> rather stark,
> and as we have discussed in the past, there is a tremendous difference
> between the registrar community and the registrar constituency.
> 
> Further to this point, (making a distinction between the 
> registrar community
> and the registrar constituency) where did these polling 
> numbers come from?
> The historical record paints a vastly different picture from 
> a constituency
> perspective - mainly that constituency support for the 
> constituency position
> sits at roughly 68%, opposition @ 24% (abstentions making up 
> the rest).
> Further details can be found at
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02193.html
> 
> As this is a DNSO call, it would be useful to stick to the 
> constituency
> details, however knowing more about your outreach efforts and 
> the source of
> your numbers would be useful in assisting us to make some informed
> judgements concerning the value of the statistics that you 
> present in the
> proposal.
> 
> Thanks in advance for any clarification that you can provide.
> 
> -rwr
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>
> To: "Juliano,Marie M - LGA" <mjuliano@att.com>; "Roger 
> Cochetti (E-mail)"
> <rogerc@netsol.com>; "Louis Touton (E-mail)" <touton@icann.org>; "Dan
> Halloran (E-mail)" <halloran@icann.org>; "Thomas Roessler (E-mail)"
> <roessler@does-not-exist.org>; "Alexander Svensson (E-mail)"
> <Alexander@svensson.de>; "Chuck Gomes (E-mail)" <cgomes@verisign.com>;
> "Transfer TF (E-mail)" <nc-transfer@dnso.org>
> Cc: "Glen (E-mail)" <gcore@wanadoo.fr>
> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 8:31 PM
> Subject: FW: [nc-transfer] Transfer Task Force Consultation 
> Calls Schedule
> 
> 
> Reminder about tomorrow's call on WLS was sent out by Marie 
> Juliano earlier
> today.
> 
> I invited presentations from those signing up or invited to make
> presentations.
> 
> Attached is a presentation from Verisign, Registry. Thanks, 
> Chuck, for your
> efforts to rearrange your schedule and for the presentation 
> you provided.
> This post will cover the TF members, GA chair, alt. chair, 
> ICANN staff.
> Marie will post to anyone who RSVP'd who isn't on the 
> Transfer TF list. I've
> posted to the Transfer TF list, so that anyone dialing in 
> late, can retrieve
> this from the "Transfer List".
> 
> So far, I've seen 3-4 folks sign up for the scheduled slots.
> 
> I plan to follow the following schedule:
> 
> Introductions/identification of participants by name and affiliation
> [company, etc., whether you represent a constituency or a 
> member of the GA,
> other}.
> Brief statement of the Chair about process and purpose
> Overview by Dan Halloran of the Board resolution, Staff 
> paper, process for
> comment
> Verisign Registry Presentation [questions to follow]
> Rick Wesson, Registrars Constituency
> ...(others who have requested slots)
> ,.....(Other participant comments
> ...(Task Force member comments)
> Conclusion
> Reminder about next day's duplicate call.  [Note: we are 
> scheduling two days
> in the event that conflicts prevented someone from 
> participating on day
> one... we may have limited attendance for Day Two. That is yet to be
> determined.]
> 
> On scheduling/availability:  Please keep Marie Juliano 
> informed if you want
> a "pre scheduled" slot...
> Marie is managing the scheduling of others who have asked for 
> a time slot...
> We will announce it at the beginning of the call since there may be an
> addition or two.
> 
> Questions or comments from any  other participants. 
> Constituency reps on the
> TF who wish to make comments should let Marie know.  There will be an
> opportunity to take questions from the participants, and my 
> intent is to
> poll for those who want to be in queue after the scheduled 
> presentations, so
> that we all know how many folks want to speak.
> 
> The IPC rep has indicated that they may have a conflict and 
> may need to
> comment electronically. IF your constituency is in that 
> position, please
> notify me.  I have acknowledgement from the GA that they will 
> be represented
> on both calls. Thank you for your participation.
> 
> On Participation: As chair, I asked our Secretariat to post 
> widely. Thanks,
> Glen, for that.  These are busy times and people are traveling and in
> meetings. I appreciate your sharing this notice widely within your
> constituencies/GA.
>