DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

[comments-whois] RE: WHOIS and Transfer Task Force Reports

Jeff, this level of detailed response allows the full TF to respond. I think, though, that your constituency owes the WHOIS TF this courtesy as well. That is the only way that the TF can evaluate your constituency's concerns.
I know it is work for the constituency, but important to do... We are having a discussion on Tuesday on both TF's. Comments by then would be very helpful so that the WHOIS TF can take the input of the Constiuency into account in its preparation for the Amsterdam meeting.
Best regards, Marilyn
-----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 11:53 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; Neuman, Jeff; bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au; comments-transfer@dnso.org; comments-whois@dnso.org
Cc: lynn@icann.org; touton@icann.org
Subject: RE: WHOIS and Transfer Task Force Reports

Please do not misunderstand the intent of the Registry Constituency statement.  It was not a request that the TF do anymore work, but merely a request to respond to the concerns raised that the comment period on the final report is too short.  The entire constituency believes that delaying the NC action until the January meeting would be in the best interests of the Internet community.
With respect to the differences, I am attaching a Redline of the Transfers TF report from the Interim Report published in October and the Final Report just published.  You will see the abundance of changes (many substantive).  I do not have the time to explain all of them or to do the same with the WHOIS report.  That being said, the Constituency is asking for one more month to digest all of the changes (again most of which the Registry Constituency does actually support). 
Please let me know if you have any questions.
-----Original Message-----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:mcade@att.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 10:51 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au; comments-transfer@dnso.org; comments-whois@dnso.org
Cc: lynn@icann.org; touton@icann.org
Subject: RE: WHOIS and Transfer Task Force Reports

Jeff, I realize that you have been on Thanksgiving holiday, and were offline during that time. I know that interfered with your delivery of your own submissions on behalf of your constituency by the deadline established.  
However, we have had extensive discussions prior to that regarding process and timelines. The intent to present the recommendation via a resolution was discussed in our recent calls. This is a surprise to the TF. Can you please clarify whom the Registry Constituency is representing in raising this concern?
Also, as we have said to others, it is more helpful when comments are specific. Can you point out the areas which you believe are substantionally different from the Interim Report so that the TF can respond. That will be really the best way to ensure that your constitutuency's concerns on behalf of the registrar constituency are understood.
Regards, Marilyn
-----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 3:43 PM
To: 'bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au'; Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; '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 has 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 familiar 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 bit more time, these issues will be worked out with a solution that a consensus 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.  In fact, the gTLD Constituency supports many of the recommendations contained within the reports, but we are reserving our final position for a time when 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 that 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. 
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Director, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Loudoun Tech Center
46000 Center Oak Plaza
Building X
Sterling, VA 20166



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