<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [nc-transfer] RE: Official gTLD Statement on the Wait List Service -- clarifica tion, and looking ahead to the continued work of the T F
Title: Message
Jeff:
I'm
misunderstanding something here, so let me try to be precise about what I
thought was happening.
There
is a Report on the WLS that is coming from the TF. That effort is a work
product of the TF and not the DNSO. Each of the constituencies has had a
chance to participate in the consensus development of that report. I'm not
aware that the constituencies were asked individually to draft their own
individual and separate reports, so I'm curious about why there would be a
"report of the gTLDs" rather than a minority report from the gTLD constituency
that was part of the TF effort.
For my
part, I thought it would be natural, in the event that the gTLD constituency
didn't agree with all the parts of the TF Report on the WLS, that the gTLDs
would contribute a minority report as part of the TF effort.
Am I
off-base here, or are we simply disagreeing about names of documents that have
the same content and are congruent in process?
mark
Mark McFadden
ISP and Connectivity Providers Constituency
Marilyn,
I am
forwarding this message on to the group (along with all the other ones).
At this point I cannot tell you if there will be a separate document because I
am awaiting their feedback. What I can tell you, however, is that in the
event we do not have another document, it is the constituency's expectation
that the statement already issued to the Task Force will be forwarded to the
Names Council, in its entirety, and be considered. It should be
referred to the DNSO as being a "report of the gTLDs" rather than a
"minority report."
If:
(a)
the DNSO has had an opportunity to consider the gTLD
statement;
(b) the DNSO has had a chance to vote on the issue;
and
(c)
and it turns out that the gTLD statement is not to be adopted by the
DNSO,
only then could it appropriately be labeled as a "minority
report."
Sorry for being such a stickler on this, but I believe labels sometimes
can be misleading :) We do appreciate the opportunity to
provide comments on this subject matter.
Jeff, I think you misunderstood me and that should have been hard to
do. :-) I'll try again for clarity on this.
I
asked if any constituencies would have a minority report. Christine
noted that your constituency would have a minority report in the TF.
:-) Your statement was not conveyed as your minority report. IF
you want it to be the "minority report" of your constituency to the TF, that
is fine, but can you please clarify that, or whether you indeed will present
a minority report which has further substance, and which clarifies the areas
I requested that your constituency describe?
So, once again:
Is
that your minority report for the constituency?
If
so, I have asked for further clarification from the Constituency. [See email
below].
If
not, please let me know that you will have a minority report,
and your TF representatives should make it available to the
TF before the call, and plan to
discuss it within the TF on the next
call.
And, yes, the
TF will vote on all submissions. BUT we want to be sure we are voting on
what your constituency considers your "minority opinion". Seems of critical
importance to be sure there is clarity on what your constituecy has
submitted and how you want it treated, don't you think?
Please let me know as soon as you can if the Registry Constituency
will have a different document noting it is your minority report
or whether we should table the submission in question as your minority
report. Please note my request for further clarification by your
constitiency so that the TF has the full benefit of your constituency's
views on this.
Best regards,
Marilyn Cade
Has the TF voted on the gTLD statement? Will they be able to
before it formally gets submitted to the DNSO as a "minority
report?"
I think Marilyn meant that it is a minority report of the TTF,
not the DNSO.
David Safran
Marilyn,
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" concept.
What if it turns out that the majority of the DNSO
supports our view? Would it still e classified as a minority
report?
Thanks.
Jeff
[Neuman,
Jeff] -----Original
Message-----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
[mailto:mcade@att.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 (E-mail)
Subject: Official gTLD Statement on the
Wait List Service -- clarification, and looking ahead to the continued
work of the TF
Jeff
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 about.
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.
Regards,
Marilyn
Cade
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 10 July 2002 16:33
Subject: [council] Official gTLD Statement on the Wait
List Service
Dear Transfer Task Force/Names Council,
The
gTLD Constituency, which represents both the sponsored and
unsponsored
gTLD registries, has had the opportunity to review
the DNSO Transfer Task
Force's Report on the Wait List Service
("Report") presented to the Board at
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.
More specifically, the constituency unanimously
believes that the Report
delves into matters that are beyond the
scope of any policy task force and
certainly are not appropriate
for the policy consensus process. These
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.
In light of these, we strongly believe that VeriSign's
proposed amendment to
Appendix G be approved by ICANN and that
they be allowed to introduce the
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 issue.
Thank
you for this opportunity to present our comments and we would be
happy
to answer any questions that you may have.
Jeffrey
J. Neuman, Esq.
Chair, gTLD Registry Constituency
e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@NeuLevel.biz
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|