Re: [nc-transfer] Transfer report to NC, GA, and Board
Ahem...apparently the bridge worked fine...someone appears to have 'hung
up'...at your end Marilyn.
I expect a full transcript on my desk tomorrow morning...(EDT is ok....I
have no need to get up at 4:30AM two days in a row hehehe)
"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:
> Ross Rader captured a key frustration of your chair. I value the time which all of you have to commit to this process, but of late, some are unable to join, and fail to even notify Marie/thus me.
> We had our scheduled work session for the Transfer TF at 11:30 A.M. - 1:30 p.m.
> Our work session today included Ross, Marilyn, Alex on behalf of the GA, and Grant to review and update the work of the TF in terms of presentations at Bucharest, recommendations to the NC. Although there were several email notices, there were several "no shows". The bridge didn't work to include Dan and David who are stalwart participants/contributors. Sloan notified us that he was just arriving and would need a "catch up briefing". Some others didn't attend, but without notice.
> We apologize that the conf. bridge didn't work for Dan who RSVP'd
> -- Grant and I are editing a presentation which will be posted shortly regarding Transfers so that we can do a report at the NC meeting. You should be sure to pay attention to the presentation and its recommendations. And GET YOUR COMMENTS BACK TO US.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 1:51 PM
> To: 'Transfer TF (E-mail)'
> Subject: [nc-transfer] Call to Action...
> I've noticed that participation has been waning lately. Despite sporadic
> posts to the mailing lists, call attendance has dropped significantly
> and there are task force members that I have not heard from in months.
> This is unacceptable to the members of the constituency I represent.
> Part of the deal is that we commit to solving the issues before us in a
> cooperative manner - even if that means hunkering down for the long
> To date, I have received no comment on the registrar constituency
> transfer proposal - despite repeated solicitations and the fact that it
> has been on the table for many, many weeks. I have also seen no comment
> on David's proposal regarding deletes that was tabled earlier this week.
> Should the chair assume that these documents have the consensus support
> of the TF and forward them to the NC as the formal policy
> recommendations of the TF?
> There are also some other questions that we need to take a look at,
> 1) Is there a need for a standardized registered name deletion policy?
> If so, what do we need to do to arrive at that policy? What steps would
> need to be taken to have it adopted by all accredited registrars? What
> role do the registries play in this? What might a policy of this nature
> look like?
> 2) Should the TF be recommending a consensus policy track on the WLS? Is
> a larger policy/process needed to deal with future registry services of
> this nature? What might a process like this look like?
> We have a face to face meeting next week - hopefully we can get some
> serious work done towards answering these questions and deal with the
> outstanding policy proposals.
> "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
> - Steven Wright
> Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal: http://www.byte.org/heathrow
SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1 e-mail:email@example.com