Re: [registrars] Draft Letter

[Rob Hall <rob@momentous.ca>]

Good work Michael,

I have a few comments below on the letter.

1)  We seem to be repeating ourselves in the letter.  We twice
ask for ICANN to post the letter to their website, and we repeat the
"existing transfer policy" in our "problems
section".

I would suggest removing the second request to post the letter. 
ICANN will post it with just one request (I think they will post it
without any request actually).

I would also suggest removing the second iteration of the "transfer
policy".   This is a letter to ICANN, whom is well aware
of the policy currently in place.  

2)  In the problems section we use the wording "A small number
of registrars representing a very large portion of the total market, have
recently initiated changes to these procedures; these changes are
..."

I believe it should be changed to "initiated changes in their
procedures".  The registrars in question have not changed the
ICANN procedure, but rather have changed their procedures.  They
will argue that they are still acting within the ICANN procedures, which
are ambiguous in some areas.  What we really are asking for is the
tightening down of these "grey" areas.

The ICANN procedures have not changed, just the implementation by some
registrars.  The references in the document referring to the change
in procedures should be modified to reflect the change in
"their" procedures.

3)  We also say the "actions of the 2 registrars" in the
problem section.  I thought there were 4 (and now one has been
acquired by Verisign).  Throughout the rest of the document, we
refer to "a small number".  We should be consistent
through the document.


The "Registrar efforts to date" section that details the
efforts in Stockholm is great.  Good Job !  The reference to
"the registrars met today" needs to be changed to
"yesterday" if the date on the letter is to remain the
24th.

4)  I would suggest a possible softening (or removal) of the words
"If the Constituency does not receive guidance from ICANN on this
issue within two weeks, the Constituency will advise its Names Council
representatives to ..." .  To me, it sounds too much like a
threat.  We have asked for direction from ICANN.  We shouldn't
threaten them with what we will do if they don't respond.  Perhaps
something more like "As time is of the essence, the Registrars
Consistency would like to move forward down one of the above two paths
within the next two weeks."

5)  In the conclusion, I would remove the first sentence of the last
paragraph.  We have already asked for posting, and they
will.

On a grammatical note, the last sentence needs an extra comma and the
"ing" removed.  Should read  " ... and if necessary,
stand willing to participate with the other DNSO constituencies in
resolving this problem.


A good start on the letter. Well done.

Rob.

(P.S.  Ross, next time you author a document, you may want to remove
yourself from the "properties" box of the document
<grin>)



At 04:32 AM 7/24/2001 -0400, Michael D. Palage wrote:
> Attached please find the proposed
> letter to Stuart drafted in accordance
> with the discussion during yesterday's teleconference and which the
> Constituency proposes sending to ICANN. I believe that the letter
> achieves
> the objectives stated in our teleconference yesterday. Please provide
> any
> comments to the letter during the next 24 hours so that I can submit it
> to
> ICANN ASAP. This letter is important to the ongoing consensus
> building
> efforts that the Constituency has undertaken and I urge all member to
> review
> this letter closely.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael D. Palage

--

Rob Hall                                voice  (613) 768-5100

President                                  fax  (613) 820-0777

Momentous.ca Corp.                          

rob@momentous.ca                      www.momentous.ca

iti,s