RE: [nc-transfer] reminder of upcoming call/vote on recommendations
I hope you are well.
As you may be aware, RegistryPro is moving toward launch and my time now
needs to be as internally focused as possible. Accordingly, I have stepped
down as the Registry Constituency's representative on the Task Force
In my place, Jeff Neuman will take the lead in representing the
constituency's views. Please be sure to include Jeff on the conference call
access list and the listserv.
It has been a pleasure working with you and I look forward to doing so in
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 11:15 PM
To: Transfer TF (E-mail)
Subject: [nc-transfer] reminder of upcoming call/vote on recommendations
Dear TF member
This is a reminder of the open comment period on the recommendations posted
by the TF. Any constituency who has a position different from the
recommendations needs to note to me BEFORE the conf. call, if they will
want to post and make a presentation/recommendation for amendment ot the
recommendation. Such recommendations would need to be presented to the TF
for consideration as amendments.
During this time, constitency/GA reps should be engaged in outreach into
their respective groups.
I will note that it is important for the TF to consider whether the
recommendations are as focused as needed and address those areas where
ICANN has an ability to make and implement policy recommendations. there
may be areas where the TF has opinions but where ICANN cannot effect
I continue to read all the posts adn to post to the TF from those who are
posting to me, in my role as chair. Some posts are about broader concerns,
and the TF should note such distinctions.
There seems to be considerable continued cnocerns about the need for a
standard deletions period adn for a standarized redemption process
regardless of any other decisions, and as conditions to any other changes.
To summarize other categories of comments: One group is strongly opposed to
Verisign WLS. One group is supportive of WLS and believes it will solve
problems for a group of users. Others express the need for dealing with
problems which exist in services delivered by either registry/or registrar
and where the registry/registrar is unresponsive, etc. The latter category
has a high number of respondents. ACross many submssions is a concern for
redemption grace period and standard deletions are also identified as parts
of any solution to existing problems.
The issue of whta should be the criteria for when/how/why services should be
introduced at the registry level is a challenging one. The TF continues to
study tht issue and understands that its recommendations could have
implications for future decisions. At a high level, I note that there is
little precendent else within ICANN to guide the TF.
Please be sure that you RSVP to me for the call. . Marie is out for two
weeks vacation. It appears to me that we will need to have a second call on
Tuesday, or at least a firm commitment to email communications.
One final note about participation, postings, and contributions. The work
of the TF is not limited to WLS. Once this issue is finalized, we will
resume our work on transfers/deletes. Some of the constiutency reps have not
made contributions, either separately via email or via conference call. I
will probably start making drafting assignments to ensure that the
constituency's reps are contributing to the input process. We'll discuss
this on our first call after the WLS work concludes, which will probably be
within 2 weeks.