[comments-transfer] INEGroup comments on Transfer Task Force Report Part I

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Task Force members,

  I have been following the TRTF for some time on the DNSO GA
list where most of the comments and discussion on DN Transfer
have been taken place.  I have also participated on two of the
Conference calls as well.  To date, or until now I have yet to
post any comment regarding the final report.

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-transfer/Arc02/msg00001.html

  I personally, along with our INEGroup members, concur with Elana
Broitman's comments in the archive URL above...  The 8 day limit
for comments and no open decision and/or debate on this report's
conclusions is unreasonable and is a gross indicator that ICANN
and the Transfer Task Force is not interested in having much if any
consideration from the registrant community or the stakeholders/users
as required in the MoU (Current) and White Paper...

  I and a number of INEGroup members also found that Danny
Youngers comments regarding this Transfer Task force report
were also quite relevant and important as well.
See:http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-transfer/Arc02/msg00002.html

and
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-transfer/Arc02/msg00003.html

  INEGRoup specific concerns from the Transfer Task Force Report:

  We also had some concerns as to the substance of the
Transfer Task Force Report.  They are as follows:

  From:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021130.NCTransferTF-gaining-and-losing-registrars.html#execsumm

1.) In the so called "Executive Summary" of which we could find no
     actual "Executive" available for contact or listed for such a
     Task Force, the following comment/statement is included:
     "The Task Force summarizes these requirements in four
      simple words; Security, Transparency, Stability and
      Portability. Any recommendation approved for implementation
      as policy must meet these four standards and achieve balance
      between them. The Task Force believes that its recommendations
      fulfill this obligation in all regards.

     More broadly speaking, the characteristics that benefits
     Registrants should also provide benefit for Registrars
     and Registries. The Transfer Task Force has tried to approach
     the problems and concerns with that goal in mind—a mutually
     beneficial approach that ensures the satisfaction of the
Registrants,
     Registrars and Registries. This system must enable a fair,
     balanced, competitive environment, provide Registrants with
     choice give them the capability to exercise that choice and
     provide Registries and Registrars with the safeguards necessary
    to limit their exposure, costs, and liability."

  In that the ICANN registration accreditation eliminates any real
"Choice" in registration of Domain Names as all Registrars are
bound by that policy edicted without the consent of the existing
registrants or stakeholders/users, the above comment/statement
cannot legitimately be taken seriously or given in any honest
manner as stated.  Hence our members have frequently expressed
directly or through myself as their spokesman that the cookie cutter
approach to "Accreditation" of Registrars or Registries effectively
eliminates real choices as all have the same ICANN edicted
Registration policy, software (SRS), and Registry software/system.
Basically they are clones of each other.  We ask how than can
this Transfer Task Force report acknowledge or suggest that
they wish to provide for "Choice" of registrar for a Registrant or
potential future registrant?

End of INEGroup Comments on Transfer Task Force Report Part I

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208