DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

Re: [nc-transfer] FW: Whois and Transfer Task Force Reports


Some questions;

- What are the "substantive" changes that you refer to?
- What are and where are these "beneficial discussions" taking place?
- Why is an endorsement from the Registry Constituency conditional upon
other Constituencies actions/endorsement?


"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
- Steven Wright

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

----- Original Message -----
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>
To: <nc-transfer@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 3:46 PM
Subject: [nc-transfer] FW: Whois and Transfer Task Force Reports

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neuman, Jeff
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 3:43 PM
> To: 'bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au'; 'mcade@att.com';
> 'comments-transfer@dnso.org'; 'comments-whois@dnso.org'
> Cc: 'lynn@icann.org'; 'touton@icann.org'
> Subject: Whois and Transfer Task Force Reports
> Bruce and Marilyn,
> As Chair of the gTLD Constituency, I have been asked to write to you to
> formally request that no action be taken on either the Whois or Transfer
> Task Force Reports at the Names Council meeting on December 14th, 2002.
> This is because we believe that there has been too little time since the
> posting of the respective reports to receive adequate and constructive
> feedback from the Internet community as a whole, especially those parts of
> the community that are not native English speakers.  There have been a
> number of substantive changes to both of the reports in response to the
> first comment period and these recommended changes need to be digested by
> the community.
> The gTLD Registry Constituency deeply appreciates the work that has been
> done up until this point on both Task Forces, however, we believe there
> not been enough time to review the Final Report which was just posted on
> November 30th (Just 15 days prior to the Names Council meeting and just 8
> days before comments were due).  There is a lot of substance in these
> reports even for some of us that are English speakers and are most
> with the subject matter.  The final report has resulted in numerous
> beneficial discussions throughout the community, including amongst the
> Registrars (who are arguably the most impacted by these reports) over the
> last few days and these should not be ignored.  I believe with a little
> more time, these issues will be worked out with a solution that a
> of the Internet community can get behind.
> On a personal note, as you both know, I serve on the Transfers Task Force
> and have put in a lot of hard work into that report along with Ross and
> Marilyn and the last thing I want to see is complaints from the Internet
> community if the NC adopts the report that it did so in too much haste.
> fact, the gTLD Constituency supports many of the recommendations contained
> within the reports, but we are reserving our final position for a time
> it is apparent that these issues have been worked out in other
> constituencies, including the Registrar Constituency.
> While we recognize this issue has been debated for a long time now and
> we need to find a solution, we believe the end is close at hand.  However,
> the gTLD Constituency believes that we need to table any formal action on
> the report until the January GNSO Names Council meeting.
> Thanks.
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> Chair, gTLD Registry Constituency
> e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@NeuLevel.biz

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