RE: [registrars] deletes/transfers Task Force/vote of excom

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>]

I recused myself on the deletes with regard to WLS, not on the broader
delete issue. Now that WLS is done I will be vocal again.

I did not proposing pulling Ross off the transfer task force but offered him
assistance.

Tim, the Transfer Task Force wasted time on WLS. There is no guarantee no
they will not waste time on deletes. The only guarantee is to have a
different group take over this issue.

Mike









-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Timothy Denton
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 2:50 PM
To: Ken Stubbs; Registrars
Cc: bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au
Subject: [registrars] deletes/transfers Task Force/vote of excom


Greetings all:
  First, the proposed vote on the jurisdiction of the transfers Task Force
may or may not
be in order, but our President has recused himself, supposedly, from any
action on
deletes, as he is a director of SnapNames. He is conflicted and should not
vote. Indeed,
it is questionable whether Mike should take any action on this issue. The
interests of
SnapNames are so clearly different from many of the registrars on this
question that he
should stay away from it. The constituency remains divided.

Second, the authority of the Transfers TF to deal with deletes was
explicitly confirmed
last week by Philip Shepherd, and follows a formal decision to that effect.
The Board of
ICANN handed the issue of deletions and transfers to the Names Council and
the Names
Council assigned it to the Transfers TF. (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-
transfer/Arc00/msg00442.html )
Jeff Neuman is in error on this point.

Third, Ross has spent several months creating the conditions for the
introduction of WLS,
conditions that safeguard the interests of registrars. Since it was viewed
by the TF that
the Board of ICANN might approve the WLS proposal, it is in the best
interest of
registrars to ensure that appropriate safeguards are emplaced. Requesting
that the
implementation of the WLS was conditional upon the development of the
Transfers TF
completing its work regarding deletes was one of these. Approving this
motion in light of
the agreement that Registrars have achieved with other constituencies on
these points is
essentially a vote of non-confidence in our TF rep. Practically speaking
pulling him off
this task would waste months of effort, and jeopardize real progress in
preserving the
interests of registrars.

Fourth, we need to ask ourselves which course of action, on any issue, is in
the best
interest of our customers. A pattern of cooperation with the registry
constituency may be
seen to be emerging which, in my view, needs to be tempered with a
realization that
registrars stand or fall on how they treat their consumers - registrants. I
think that if
we kept this criterion foremost in our consideration of tactics within the
councils of
ICANN, we would not go wrong.

Fifth, it is clear that this question should be thoroughly vetted in our
conversation on
Monday at 5pm. It is too important for email.

Below is a copy of Shepherd’s clarification of the jurisdiction delegated to
it from the
Names Council to the Transfers TF.

·	To: <nc-transfer@dnso.org>
·	Subject: [nc-transfer] Transfers task force and the NC expectations
·	From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
·	Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 12:05:01 +0200
·	Organization: AIM
·	Sender: owner-nc-transfer@dnso.org

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





On Aug 23, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:

> If we do that - it would be worthwhile having Ross Rader join us for that
> discussion.
>
> I tend to agree with Michael, but would like to hear Ross's read of the
> situation as well.
>
> There are developments occuring within Names Council and also with ICANN
> policy processes at the same time.
>
> I would prefer that we get deletes into a fresh policy track and follow
the
> new recommended process.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce
>

> > To the Names Council:
> >
> > This morning the ICANN Board met to consider VeriSign's 21 March 2002
> > request for certain amendments to the .com and .net registry services to
> > permit the offering of a Wait Listing Service for a fee.  As you are
> > aware, in response to the Board's earlier request the DNSO gave advice
> > on various aspects of the VeriSign request.
> >
> > At this morning's meeting, the ICANN Board authorized the ICANN
> > President and General Counsel to conduct negotiations with VeriSign
> > toward appropriate revisions to the .com and .net registry agreements to
> > provide for the offering of a wait-listing service as proposed by
> > VeriSign, with six additional conditions.  As you will note from the
> > resolution, the Board drew heavily from the advice developed by the task
> > force's efforts, which it found to be very helpful in establishing the
> > conditions.  The Board is grateful to the Names Council and the task
> > force for coordinating this work.
> >
> > The resolution adopted is posted at
> >
> <<a href='http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-
23aug02.htm#VeriSignWLSProposal>'>http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report
-
23aug02.htm#VeriSignWLSProposal></a>
> >
> > I'd like to add my personal thanks to those of the Board for the hard
> > work and constructive advice that the Names Council, task force, and
> > DNSO participants gave on this issue.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Louis Touton
> >
> >
>
> Timothy Denton, BA BCL
tmdenton.com
Telecom and Internet Issues
37 Heney Street
Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1N 5V6
tmdenton@magma.ca - phone (613) 789-5397 - fax 613-789-5398
http://www.tmdenton.com
North Hatley - 1-819-842-2238