RE: [nc-transfer] RE: Official gTLD Statement on the Wait List Service -- clarifica tion, and looking ahead to the continued work of the TF
think Marilyn meant that it is a minority report of the TTF, not the
Thank you for your note. I will send it to the group for
comment. I do have one issue with your statement to us and that is that
you are classifying anything we submit as a "minority report" before the DNSO
has a chance to look at our statement. This is one of the reasons that
our constituency has not been in support of the "minority v. majority report"
if it turns out that the majority of the DNSO supports our view?
Would it still e classified as a minority report?
Jeff] -----Original Message-----
Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 14,
2002 5:11 PM
To: Jeff Neuman (E-mail)
Cc: Transfer TF
(E-mail); Dan Halloran (E-mail); Louis Touton (E-mail); Philip Sheppard
Subject: Official gTLD Statement on the Wait List Service
-- clarification, and looking ahead to the continued work of the
Thank you for the attached post
outlining part of the Constituency's views. It is helpful to the TF
to note that the Registry Constituency is on record as endorsing
the approval of the VS WLS, as noted in the attached. And, it is
helpful to the TF, to have it clarified that it is the
Registry Constituency who has these objections.
Can I ask that the
Registry Constituency provide more detail on what you object to regarding
the TF's work overall? As members of the TF, I do believe that
you have a responsibility to contribute to its work and success, even
if you take exception to, or disagree with recommendations. Thus, it would
be helpful to the TF, and important to the integrity of its work, to
hear from your constituency regarding the additional areas you are concerned
Finally, Jeff, I am sure that Christine has relayed
this to you, but your constituency should prepare and submit a minority
report to the TF for our next meeting. You have two representatives to the
TF, of course. They should present the minority report at the next meeting.
That is because it is possible that the TF might accept some portion
of the minority report. You may not be the only constituency with a minority
report, by the way. I am not sure about that yet. Your minority
report, in any case, will be forwarded without any change by the TF, along
with the final report of the TF, to the NC. And minority reports are
forwarded onto the Board by the NC. Your minority report should, of
course, have substance to it, not just be a disagreement with the
process which the TF has followed. :-)
I am happy to talk to you
further. Please share my email with your constituency.
On a longer term
note: Much work remains before the TF, regardless of the outcome of
WLS. I would hope that we can count on your constituency's full
participation and contributions. A quick review of attendance at TF calls,
and perhaps noting the participation within this TF is usually made through
contributions either on the calls, or by postings to the list in response to
submissions by others will be helpful to your constituency as you
consider your longer term support and participation within the TF and its
work on Transfers and Deletes.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 10 July 2002 16:33
Subject: [council] Official gTLD Statement on the Wait List
Dear Transfer Task Force/Names Council,
Constituency, which represents both the sponsored and unsponsored
registries, has had the opportunity to review the DNSO Transfer
Force's Report on the Wait List Service ("Report") presented to the
the ICANN meeting in Bucharest. As we have consistently
stated within the
Transfer Task Force, the gTLD constituency has several
serious concerns with
the report and the process behind producing that
Report, which prevent us
from giving it our support.
specifically, the constituency unanimously believes that the
delves into matters that are beyond the scope of any policy task
certainly are not appropriate for the policy consensus
matters include, but are not limited to: (1) whether
a Registry Service can
be introduced by a Registry Operator; and (2) the
price of a Registry
Service. We believe that such issues are
related to the business of the
individual registry and are more
appropriate for the market place to
regulate rather than ICANN.
light of these, we strongly believe that VeriSign's proposed amendment
Appendix G be approved by ICANN and that they be allowed to introduce
Wait List Service.
*We want to note for the record that
because of VeriSign's inherent interest
in this issue, VeriSign did not
participate in the gTLD Constituency's
discussion of this particular
Thank you for this opportunity to present our comments and we
would be happy
to answer any questions that you may have.
J. Neuman, Esq.
Chair, gTLD Registry Constituency