RE: [nc-transfer] Progressing Transfers
Thanks Grant. Let me propose some modifications to reflect the fact that we have an important call this week: SEE BELOW IN ALL CAPS: -----Original Message----- From: Grant Forsyth [mailto:Grant.Forsyth@team.telstraclear.co.nz] Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 5:48 PM To: 'Cade,Marilyn S - LGA'; Transfer TF (E-mail) Subject: [nc-transfer] Progressing Transfers Marilyn I have been reviewing the current status of the task force and have a couple of suggestions to make. 1. I propose that Ross's IRDX paper be the core of our recommendations to the Names Council for adoption and forwarding to the Board WITH ANY CHANGES FROM THIS CALL (WHICH IS THE FIRST REAL TIME FOR GENERAL PUBLIC INPUT) 2. I suggest that Ram's paper "A better way to transfer Domain Names" 15 August, be attached to the IRDX paper as an informational annex and method of FOA THE PAPER IS REFERENCED BELOW FOR ALL THOSE THAT MAY NOT HAVE IT READILY AVAILABLE. THIS IS A GOOD PIECE, BUT I AM NOT SURE IT CAN BE UNDERSTOOD OUT OF ITS CONTEXT BY SOMEONE WHO JUST READ THAT PAPER. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE SOMETHING LIKE THIS RAM AND I CAN TRY TO MAKE IT MORE "READER FRIENDLY." 3. I propose that at the next TF meeting, this Wednesday/Thursday, that the TF adopt the IRDX paper by consensus or vote (if necessary) so that we can build on that with confidence - if there are still issues that people have with any aspects of the paper, I would hope that they will take this proposal to prompt them to comment on the IRDX paper such that we can make whatever amendments are necessary and then adopt it I DO NOT BELIEVE A VOTE SHOULD HAPPEN FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER WEEK SO THAT WE CAN GIVE TIME (IF ANY IS NEEDED) TO ABSORB ANY PUBLIC INPUT THAT WE RECEIVE ON THE CALL ON WEDNESDAY. ONE MORE WEEK SHOULD DO IT. 4. I propose that we aim to put the complete report - including the IRDX as our central recommendation - to the Names Council meeting of 3 October for their consideration prior to the Names Council formally adopting it at Shanghi (this will provide the NC with an appropriate time to take it back to their constituencies (remembering that all constituencies are represented on the TF) and post for final public comment). I THINK THIS STILL MAY BE ATTAINABLE EVEN IF WE HAVE AN EXTRA WEEK (ABOVE). 5. I propose that, given the Names Council will be formally adopting the TF report at Shanghi, the public form planned for Shanghi be used to "close off" the process and provide the Board (not the Names Council) with the opportunity to receive final comments on the report. I GUESS THE PUBLIC WOULD BE GIVEN ANOTHER PERIOD FOR PUBLIC INPUT PRIOR TO THE NC ADOPTING THE REPORT, RIGHT? ALSO, WE NEED TO DECIDE WHAT ACTIONS WOULD STILL NEED TO BE ANSWERED BY THE TASK FORCE AFTER THE REPORT. IN ADDITION, WE NEED TO HEAR WHAT DAN AND ICANN SAY ARE REQUIRED IN ORDER FOR THIS REPORT TO (1) BE ADOPTED AND (2) BE INCORPORATED INTO THE REGISTRY/REGISTRAR AGREEMENTS (IF NECESSARY). I look forward to my fellow TF members' comments on my proposals. Regards THANKS AGAIN GRANT. Grant Forsyth BC Member on the Transfers Task Force Transfers In Thick Registries.doc |