DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[nc-transfer] Posting of relevance to Transfer TF Recommendations on WLS, clarification of inaccurate information, and schedules

  • To: "Transfer TF (E-mail)" <nc-transfer@dnso.org>, "Louis Touton (E-mail)" <touton@icann.org>, "Dan Halloran (E-mail)" <halloran@icann.org>
  • Subject: [nc-transfer] Posting of relevance to Transfer TF Recommendations on WLS, clarification of inaccurate information, and schedules
  • From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>
  • Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 13:01:32 -0400
  • Sender: owner-nc-transfer@dnso.org
  • Thread-Index: AcI1IaeZoE3OjVVjSPuLFH5dElYYzgAXlPfw
  • Thread-Topic: [ga] Once more into the breach....WLS spin by proponents

Please see Susan Crawford's post on behalf of her clients, SnapNames at

My laywoman's analysis of the posting:  
Ms. Crawford explains her client's views on what ICANN CAN do, in regard to
registry services, notes her client's views on the recommendations
of the Task Force in a few areas, recommends against accepting the proposed
conditions recommended by the Task Force and supported by the Names Council
vote, and presents a request to the Board for prompt 
approval of the WLS service, presumably as verbally modified by Verisign, in Bucharest]
in a simple up/down vote on the WLS price alone.

I have reviewed Ms.Crawford's submission in some detail.

Regardless of any other views I may have as Task Force chair on her posting 
for her client, unfortunately, one section seems to be reliant on a 
previous version of the recommendations, in the "cost element" section at least.  

The original recommendation that Ms. Crawford references which is #3 in her 
submission is headed "Pricing questions." She then paraphrases from the earlier
DRAFT recommendations of the Task Force.   

I note for the Task Force archives that #3, as described by Ms. Crawford that 
this particular recommendation was modified by vote of the Task Force in 
its meeting on 7/22, is not the recommendation within the final ballot which 
was distributed to the Task Force list and provided to the TF members to vote, 
and is not the version which is in the final report. 

In particular, I note that extensive discussion and consideration was given to the
views and objections of the Registry Constituency regarding the "cost" element recommendation 
in particular and to their position paper which challenges the Task Force's work on several fronts.
Due notice and recognition has been given throughout the process to the objections of the
constituency and in particular to their concerns related to this issue. 
ICANN staff were present on the call. After further discussion related to this particular
element, the TF then edited the DRAFT recommendations by accepting amendments, 
voted on whether to accept the amendments to the DRAFT recommendations, and then 
posted the revised recommendations as the final ballot for vote by email within the Task Force. 

A brief description of the changes made in the DRAFT recommendations follows:

The replacement "element" in particular to Ms. Crawford's submission is noted as E, under II, 
and is labeled "Cost" in the summary of the vote, distributed by the Names Council chair 
to the Names Council. The complete language which the vote was taken on is as follows:
"WLS should be cost based, consistent with previous considerations for 
approval of Registry services by the ICANN board". The outcome of the vote on all elements
is shown in the final report.
Other modifications were made in the recommendations, as well, in particular II, A, to change 
from 3 months to 6 months, and in C.2, which was substantively modified as well, by the Task Force
by a vote on 7/22.  These changes will be noted further in the minutes which Glen 
will be completing for posting as soon as time permits. 

However, these modifications were apparent since they were reflected in the final ballot 
which was distributed and voted on by the Task Force and are the recommendations forwarded
to the Names Council for vote.  The final ballot was posted to the Task Force on 7/22 and has
been on the site since. The final report is available as of 7/24 on both the Names Council 
and Task Force sites.

I will draw Ms.Crawford's attention to the final ballot distributed on 7/22, 
with the revised "cost based element" as well as to the Final Report for any action she/her
client consider appropriate to their communications related to the Task Force recommendations.

I thereby advise the Transfer TF members that they should continue
to monitor the Public Forums to follow any further discussion re WLS.

However, I am not encouraging the TF to take up a debate regarding WLS again.I 
recommend that we consider at this point, that our work in assessing, analyzing
and recommending has resulted in an extensive report which provides the 
requested advice to the Board.  I will forward ONLY posts which I consider directly 
material and relevant to the TF list.  I will direct other posts to 
me which are commentary to the DNSO Public Forum list, which is still open.

In short, while I believe the TF should remain current and informed on what
is being said, we are now in the position of awaiting what the recommendation of
the board is on WLS.   We may as a Task Force, or as individual constituency
representatives/GA have a view on what others say about our work, of course. :-)
And, clarifications of fact will continue to be responded to, as appropriate.
I do not intend to take up the time of the Task Force except as relevant to questions
about our work, process, recommendations, or issues dealing with clarification of 

Transfers and Deletes Schedules:

We will be posting a schedule of possible conference meeting dates
for the Transfer Task Force early this week for our work on transfers,
and deletions.  I am in the process of trying to check Glen's schedule,
and Dan Halloran's. In the future, we will make all attempts to have
ICANN staff participate in our calls, as their schedules permit.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>