DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

RE: [nc-transfer] FW: [GTLD-RC] Revised DRAFT NC resolution re WHOIS TF report

  • To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>, <nc-transfer@dnso.org>
  • Subject: RE: [nc-transfer] FW: [GTLD-RC] Revised DRAFT NC resolution re WHOIS TF report
  • From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>
  • Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 09:28:30 -0500
  • Sender: owner-nc-transfer@dnso.org
  • Thread-Index: AcKhy+MowEGis42oSwWjR24LrTxmCAAG8+bw
  • Thread-Topic: [nc-transfer] FW: [GTLD-RC] Revised DRAFT NC resolution re WHOIS TF report

I spoke to Ram at length last night on a number of issues, and to clarify that he is able to help to deliver the issues paper on his working group's topic: search ability, in WHOIS. 
Since Jeff has chosen to interpret his posting, I need to clarify that in my conversation with Ram, regarding WHOIS, I did not come away with the interpretation which Jeff has attributed to Ram's posting to the WHOIS TF.  Perhaps that is because we were engaged in a discussion where I was presenting other perspectives about timing of implementation, noting that Redemption Grace was developed in a different process, etc. HOWEVER, that posting was to a different TF, 

Let's not extrapolate or interpret for someone else. I came away from the conversation thinking that he supported the  need to have the board approve the policy before a full implementation committee was established.  So, my conversation was different and the topic was different. 

Jeff has chosen to interpret and that is always a potentially dangerous slope... people can speak for themselves regarding what they mean. That's usually best.

I think that Jeff is trying to be productive and convey the concerns of the TF to his constituency and I know that he is trying his best to champion the concerns and perspectives of the full TF. But of course, he is trying to ensure that the TF understands the views of his constituency as well. 

Should Ram or any other member of the Registry Constituency want to share further comments with this TF I know that the TF would welcome them. :-) But, people need to speak for themselves regarding their postings to other fora. So, no debates about what someone meant on another TF. That TF has its own work to do on this topic... Let's let it.:-) 

Let's try to focus on our own TF's work and interaction as much as we can, please. 

I think there remains some misunderstanding on everyone's part about "cost", though. There seems to be a view by the registrars and registries that there is never a cost to registrants for either an existing system or its failures, or a change in such a system.


Let's remember, as TF members, that we have also heard from registrants... and they haven't been "unaffected" in terms of costs. 

At the same time, I appreciate the view of the registrars and registrars. BUT, perhaps a dialogue about this issue is more important than announcing "hard and fast positions" negotiated among themselves, without the benefit of further dialogue with the TF. I believe that is what a TF process can enable. 

Let's all keep our patience here and remember that "we" are trying to get to consensus policy. Consensus means that there are parties affected more widely than just R/R, so let's all try to keep that in mind. I know, I  know: BUT, they are more affected than anyone else. I've been told that already. :-) I'm trying to be productive here. 

There are other models, and that is what this TF has tried to put forward. 

NOT to ignore the implementation issues. However, the TF needs to also respect that at some point policy is policy and then it moves to implementation. I believe that the TF respects that once Policy is approved, the next stage will not be without some interpretation of the policy. That will mean some adjustments. What it shouldn't mean though is an overhaul of the policy recommendations by the implementation team.

Further, I didn't see support in the discussion in the TF for giving policy authority to an implementation team of the R/R/Staff -- which is what the TF members who discussed this saw happening with the present sequencing. No one should interpret the TF discussion regarding the NC Chair memo regarding the need for implementation as a failure to support an implementation process. :-) there is strong support for the need for such a process. 

The TF members need to be sharing the perspectives of the TF with their constituencies, though. And, while I've called ICANN staff a few times to try to discuss the "past history" of when implementation processes have been utilized, and when they were chartered, etc. it's been impossible for us to catch each other due to time challenges. I am sure I'll be able to reach them today or perhaps onsite Friday.

The goal should be policy which has broad input. IF we have a situation where a few people merely hold their breath until they are blue in the face, and then a few more do it, and then a few more... all of us will find that that sad lack of oxygen inhibits productive thinking.  :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us]
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 5:58 PM
To: 'nc-transfer@dnso.org'
Subject: [nc-transfer] FW: [GTLD-RC] Revised DRAFT NC resolution re
WHOIS TF report


The following was a note posted by one of the gTLD Registry Constituency
reps to the Whois Task Force and I believe the same comments are similarly
applicable to our task force.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ram Mohan [mailto:rmohan@AFILIAS.INFO]
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 4:11 PM
Subject: Re: [GTLD-RC] Revised DRAFT NC resolution re WHOIS TF report

I understand and appreciate the thought and effort behind your posting.

However, asking the board or the NC to approve policy _prior_ to determining
its feasibility (via an implementation group) seems ... somewhat
short-sighted.  For example, had the Redemption Grace Period group not first
met from an implementation perspective, prior to approving policy, some
critical elements would not have been flushed out - for a relatively simple
policy item.

Given the much more complex issues that are associated with Whois, I think
the NC Chair's approach has great value, and may in fact be the only real
way to see the hard work that you and all of us on this Task Force have put
in actually make it into implementable reality.

Speaking as a member of a Constituency which will have to foot the bill
(along with Registrars) for implementing these (much-needed) changes, the
changes that our Task Force is recommending are (a) non-trivial, (b) require
significant implementation work, and (c) will cause reprioritization of
other needed tasks, including tasks leading to potential loss of revenue.
This does not mean that these changes should not be implemented - the
Constituencies would not be involved otherwise.  But - it does mean that we
as a Task Force must remain aware of the problem in front of us.

I understand the desire to limit "substantive" policy changes as part of the
Implementation Team's role -- however, as anyone who's involved in
implementing technology knows, sometimes the best-implemented technical
solutions will still fall short of defined policy goals, and as a result,
cause "substantive" policy changes.  This is not advocacy - it's simply

Ram Mohan
Vice President, Business Operations
p: +1-215-706-5700; f: +1-215-706-5701
e: rmohan@afilias.info

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>
To: "Kristy McKee" <k@widgital.com>; "Steve Metalitz" <metalitz@iipa.com>;
"Thomas Roessler" <roessler@does-not-exist.org>; <andrews@epic.org>;
<gcore@wanadoo.fr>; <tmdenton@magma.ca>; "Laurence Djolakian"
<Laurence_Djolakian@MPAA.org>; <Troy_Dow@MPAA.org>;
<gilbert.lumantao@lycos.com>; <baf@fausett.com>; <philg@grabensee.com>;
<harris@cabase.org.ar>; "Juliano,Marie M - LGA" <mjuliano@att.com>;
<rmohan@afilias.info>; <hakik@sdnbd.org>; <orobles@nic.mx>;
<kstubbs@digitel.net>; <abel@able-towers.com>; "Francis Coleman"
<fcoleman@gnr.com>; <agrawal@epic.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 2:01 PM
Subject: RE: Revised DRAFT NC resolution re WHOIS TF report

> Thanks, Steve. To the team: I spoke to Steve about the Transfer TF
discussion. It is summarized broadly below for your information.  I advised
Tony of this issue and he and I are in agreement on what is happening next.
I am trying to talk to Bruce Tonkin and I've left a message for Louie to
talk about what has happened up to now in terms of practices when policy is
implemented... I have a pretty good idea, but wanted to verify it with the
> More background:
> Yesterday, in the Transfer TF call discussion related to the NC chair memo
was more detailed, and very different than the WHOIS TF... perhaps because
of a different.. or perhaps not so different dynamic. [more on this front
later in the email].
> There is a small group of registrars, who appear to be supported by some
in the registry constituency -- who believe that it should be possible to
make substantive changes during the implementation work to take into account
other views, or new inputs, etc.   The Registry Constituency rep who advised
the TR-TF was very helpful in trying to explain the concerns of his
constituency on behalf of some of the registrars.  His views should not be
understood to support the other concerns expressed below and he did have to
drop off the call before its conclusion.  The concerns expressed by TR-TR
members from three different constituencies raised concerns that there
should not be "substantive" policy changes during implementation of policy
recommendations. SINCE the implementation process recommended by the NC
chair takes place BEFORE policy is approved by the board, it appears to
recreate the work and role of a TF, but is proposed to only have R/R and
> There remains a split in the Registrar constituency on the recommendations
of the TR-TF. This is not a simple matter, of course, to resolve.
> However,  members of the Transfer TF takes the view that they have
studied, taken input, considered, addressed, and tried again and again to
get documentation from registrars who state that substantial fraud and
slamming cases exist which would prohibit the reaffirmation of "auto'ack"
with the other protections recommended in the TR-TF report.
> Back to the discussion regarding the NC chair's recommended
process/procedures, timing of activities:
> There was limited sympathy ranging to absolutely no sympathy on the part
of the other TF members on the call for putting an implementation process in
between the NC approval of policy and the Board approval of policy.
> Some members on the call expressed a strong recommendation that policy has
to be approved by the Board before it goes to an implementation
committee/effort. There was further strong recommendation that there has to
be safeguards limiting an implementation process from making policy changes.
The TF members varied in their views of what those safeguards might be,
ranging from trusting the staff, once the Board approves policy, to stay
within implementation guidelines, to wanting to have representation on the
implementation committee, to wanting to have the implementation committee
report into the TF for development of the final report...
> However, I wanted you to know that there was significant concern that an
implementation process between the NC and the Board before policy approval
by the board raised serious concerns by some members of the TR-TF. AT the
same time, there is strong support for an implementation work effort, in the
form of a staff supported committee.[composition to be determined].  No one
supported substantive policy changes within the implementation process but
discussions included the need to refer any substantive policy modifications
back to the NC, for reconsideration by the TF.
> So, there you have it... I am trying to reach Bruce Tonkin, the NC chair,
to discuss with him, and I've called Louie Touton.
> Steve's resolution drafts address these options/issues... I believe.
> I think that Ken may be traveling. I've left him a message. A little bird
told me today that the Constituency voted not to support the WHOIS TF
report, but they were confused I believe, since they thought that the vote
was on the Interim Report, which of course, was much streamlined in the
final recommendations, and moved many of the items into "further work" with
no policy recommendations. Hopefully, the little bird was wrong, or
> I have also emailed several registrars to ask them what their views are
about the WHOIS report... in case Ken is traveling, or Philipp isn't
available to respond...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kristy McKee [mailto:k@widgital.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 12:23 PM
> To: Steve Metalitz
> Cc: Steve Metalitz; Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; 'Thomas Roessler';
> 'andrews@epic.org'; 'gcore@wanadoo.fr'; 'tmdenton@magma.ca'; Laurence
> Djolakian; 'Troy_Dow@mpaa.org'; 'gilbert.lumantao@lycos.com';
> 'baf@fausett.com'; 'philg@grabensee.com'; 'harris@cabase.org.ar';
> Juliano,Marie M - LGA; 'rmohan@afilias.info'; 'hakik@sdnbd.org';
> 'orobles@nic.mx'; 'kstubbs@digitel.net'; 'abel@able-towers.com';
> 'Francis Coleman'; 'agrawal@epic.org'
> Subject: Re: Revised DRAFT NC resolution re Whois TF report
> Thanks, Steve,
> My preference is the latter.
>  From your message:  "implementation comes into play once the
> recommendations are definitively accepted."
> Thank you,
> Kristy
> At 12:10 PM 12/11/2002 -0500, Steve Metalitz wrote:
> >Colleagues,
> >
> >I have revised the draft resolution in an attempt to reflect our
> >yesterday.  There are two versions attached.  One (Version 2.0)follows
> >Bruce Tonkin "roadmap" of creating an implementation committee to review
> >recommendations before they go to the Board.  The second (Version 2.1)
> >postpones the use of an implementation committee until (1) the Board acts
> >those matters requiring Board action (e.g., Accuracy Section III which
> >change RAA, and just about all of the Bulk Access sections) or (2) ICANN
> >accepts the recommendations which don't require Board action (e.g. most
> >Accuracy Section I). This second approach, as I understand it, may be
> >by the Transfers Task Force in its resolution, and in any case makes more
> >sense to me -- implementation comes into play once the recommendations
> >definitively accepted.
> >
> >Comments?
> >
> >Steve Metalitz
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Steve Metalitz
> >Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 6:16 PM
> >To: Marilyn Cade; Thomas Roessler
> >Cc: andrews@epic.org; gcore@wanadoo.fr; tmdenton@magma.ca; Laurence
> >Djolakian; Troy_Dow@mpaa.org; gilbert.lumantao@lycos.com;
> >baf@fausett.com; philg@grabensee.com; harris@cabase.org.ar;
> >Juliano,Marie M - LGA; k@widgital.com; Steve Metalitz;
> >rmohan@afilias.info; hakik@sdnbd.org; orobles@nic.mx;
> >kstubbs@digitel.net; abel@able-towers.com; Francis Coleman;
> >'agrawal@epic.org'
> >Subject: RE: DRAFT NC resolution re Whois TF report -- for discussion on
> >Tuesday
> >
> >
> >As requested, I have tried to draft, for discussion on our conference
> >tomorrow, a possible resolution for consideration by the Names Council in
> >its meeting next Saturday.  This tracks, as closely as possible, the
> >by Bruce Tonkin of last Saturday, which Thomas posted to our list.
> >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/msg00778.html
> >
> >The deadlines in the attached draft seem quite ambitious but if we are to
> >follow Bruce's suggested procedure AND have a finished product for Board
> >action in Rio they are seemingly unavoidable.  The February GNSO Council
> >meeting is slated to be February 20, and apparently the report must be
> >posted by March 3 or thereabouts (20 days prior to Rio) in order to be
> >upon there (not that such a deadline has ever been respected in the
> >Obviously if we are to look at action in Montreal rather than Rio (or
> >a Board teleconference between the two meetings) then these February
> >deadlines could be relaxed.
> >
> >I have included three options for allocating "further work"  (other than
> >completing the work on items 2 and 3, searchability and
> >uniformity/consistency, and getting the "Board report" on items 1 and 4
> >prepared).  I am talking here, in essence, about the issues (other than
> >straightforward implementation matters) that our report says should be
> >reviewed further by the task force "or another appropriate body."  Option
> >gives these items to the Task Force; item 2 tells the implementation
> >committee to recommend a course of action; and item 3 leaves it to the
> >Names/GNSO Council to decide by the time of its January meeting.
> >
> >I would emphasize that the "implementation committee" approach is not my
> >idea but is taken from Bruce's recommendation in his posting.  (The main
> >change I have made is that the implementation committee would not be
> >wholly from the ranks of the registrar and registry constituencies, as
> >seems to be suggesting.)  Of course if we think another procedure should
> >followed I assume we could suggest it.
> >
> >Steve Metalitz
> >
> >
> >

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