RE: [nc-transfer] Transfers task force and the NC expectations

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>]

All,

 

Please read the Board resolution:

 

Resolved [02.53] that the Board requests the Names Council to coordinate within the DNSO a comprehensive review of issues concerning the deletion of domain names and possible solutions for those issues and to submit to the Board, no later than 10 June 2002, a status report on that review, with the status report to include any recommendations (with supporting materials) concerning VeriSign's request to modify the .com and .net agreements to allow it to provide a wait-listing service, for a fee, as part of its operation of the .com and .net registries;

Resolved [02.54] that the Secretary is directed to advise the Address and Protocol Councils of VeriSign's request and the Board's intent to consider that request at its Bucharest meeting on 28 June 2002, with an invitation to those councils to submit comments (if any) on the request before that time;

Resolved [02.55] that the Board invites public comments on VeriSign's request and directs that a suitable mechanism be established for allowing comments to be submitted over the Internet to ICANN for at least a thirty-day period; and

Resolved [02.56] that the Board invites comments on VeriSign's request at the Public Comment Forum to be held on 27 June 2002 in Bucharest, Romania.

 

A few points:

1)  You have to read the resolution (not the whereas clauses)

2)  A final report was due at the end of June (it is not the basis for ongoing work).

3)  It invited the DNSO (not necessarily the transfers task force) to look into the issues. 

This will be my last comment on this subject, but I believe that after transfers is resolved, my work on the Task Force is done.  If we decide to take up this issue, I will have another representative from my constituency appointed to the Task Force.

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Safran, David [mailto:DSafran@nixonpeabody.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 9:12 AM
To: 'Neuman, Jeff'; 'Philip Sheppard'; nc-transfer@dnso.org
Cc: 'rcochetti@verisign.com'; 'ck@nic.museum'; 'jordyn.buchanan@registrypro.com'
Subject: RE: [nc-transfer] Transfers task force and the NC expectations

I disagree with you Jeff, and do not how you can reach that conclusion which does not conform with the wording quoted.  The quoted language seems to clearly authorize this group to study the deletions issue, and not just relative to WLS.  If there is a significant divergence among the members of the TTF as to the meaning of the Board request, it seems only reasonable to ask the Board what they meant as to the issue of consideration of deletions by this task force.

 

David S. Safran Nixon Peabody LLP 8180 Greensboro Drive Suite 800 McLean, VA 22102 Office:  703.770.9315 Fax:  703.770.9400 dsafran@nixonpeabody.com

This email message and any attachments are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately reply to the sender and delete the message from your email system. Thank you.

-----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 9:02 AM
To: 'Philip Sheppard'; nc-transfer@dnso.org
Cc: 'rcochetti@verisign.com'; 'ck@nic.museum'; 'jordyn.buchanan@registrypro.com'
Subject: RE: [nc-transfer] Transfers task force and the NC expectations

I disagree Philip.  The Board was asking for only that relevant to the Wait List Service.  It was not an open invitation to explore deletions as a whole.  I agree someone will have to address these deletions issues (when someone figures out what the issues are).  We have way too much work to do on transfers.  The role of Task Forces is to discuss narrow issues. 

 

At some point a task force needs to be absolved.  Look at other policy and technical bodies.  All of them are asked to address extremely narrow issues.  Once that narrow issue is addressed, the Task Force disbands.  A new Task Force should be commissioned with respect to deletions.  Diversity of membership to the task force, diversity of leadership, and diversity of opinions needs to be encouraged.

 

As I previously stated, my constituency has not authorized me to discuss deletions and personally I do not have the time to take up deletions as well.  So, if the transfer task force  takes up deletions, I would respectfully ask that I be allowed to go back to my constituency to get a different representative.  I would like to continue working on the transfers issue however and can still devote the time to that.

 

Again, I implore you Philip to raise the issue with the NC.  I also implore the Names Council to come up with an extremely narrow charter on the work of the new task force on deletions.

-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 6:05 AM
To: nc-transfer@dnso.org
Subject: [nc-transfer] Transfers task force and the NC expectations

Transfers TF,

For the record allow me to remind you what the Names Council has asked of the Transfers Task Force.

 

1. Transfers

11 October 201 The NC resolved to establish a Transfers TF.

 

2. Deletes

The NC meeting of 29 May confirmed the referral of the ICANN board request on WLS to the Transfers TF and in addition adopted the following outline for the broader issues raised:

"- Deletion issue,
- Possible solutions
- Verisign Wait Listing Service proposal
The report will comment on the:
- the status of deletions,
- possible steps for ICANN to take on the redemption policy
- options to ameliorate harm done to Registrants
- ways of lessening the load on Registries
- the Wait Listing Service proposal from Verisign."

 

By this action the NC has assumed that the Transfers TF would produce recommendations to the NC on the relevant policy issues surrounding transfers, deletes, WLS, redemption grace period. The NC has not established any other body to do this work.

 

It was left to the TF to prioritise the issues and its order of work. If that means constituencies choose to change their reps to bring expertise as the subject matter of the TF changes, that is acceptable, prudent and efficient.

 

 

Philip Sheppard
NC Chair

logo_824.gif