[ncdnhc-discuss] reminder of upcoming call/vote on recommendations

[James Love]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [nc-transfer] reminder of upcoming call/vote on recommendations
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 23:15:05 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade at att.com>
To: "Transfer TF (E-mail)" <nc-transfer at dnso.org>


Dear TF member
This is a reminder of the open comment period on the recommendations posted 
by the TF.  Any constituency who has a position different from the 
recommendations needs to note to me BEFORE the conf. call,  if they will 
want to post and make a presentation/recommendation for amendment ot the 
recommendation. Such recommendations would need to be presented to the TF 
for consideration as amendments.

During this time, constitency/GA reps should be engaged in outreach into 
their respective groups.

I will note that it is important for the TF to consider whether the 
recommendations  are as focused as needed and address those areas where 
ICANN has an ability to make and implement policy recommendations.  there 
may be areas where the TF  has opinions but where ICANN cannot effect change.

I continue to read all the posts adn to post to the TF from those who are 
posting to me, in my role as chair. Some posts are about broader concerns, 
and the TF should note such distinctions.

There seems to be considerable continued cnocerns about the need for a 
standard deletions period adn for a standarized redemption process 
regardless of any other decisions, and as conditions to any other changes.

To summarize other categories of comments:  One group is strongly opposed to 
Verisign WLS. One group is supportive of WLS and believes it will solve 
problems for a group of users. Others express the need for dealing with 
problems which exist in services delivered by either registry/or registrar 
and where the registry/registrar is unresponsive, etc.  The latter category 
has a high number of respondents.  ACross many submssions is a concern for 
redemption grace period and standard deletions are also identified as parts 
of any solution to existing problems.

The issue of whta should be the criteria for when/how/why services should be 
introduced at the registry level is a challenging one. The TF continues to 
study tht issue and understands that its recommendations could have 
implications for future decisions. At a high level, I note that there is 
little precendent else within ICANN  to guide the TF.

Please be sure that you RSVP to me for the call. . Marie is out for two 
weeks vacation. It appears to me that we will need to have a second call on 
Tuesday, or at least a firm commitment to email communications.

One final note about participation, postings, and contributions.  The work 
of the TF is not limited to WLS.  Once this issue is finalized, we will 
resume our work on transfers/deletes. Some of the constiutency reps have not 
made contributions, either separately via email or via conference call. I 
will probably start making drafting assignments to ensure that the 
constituency's reps are contributing to the input process.  We'll discuss 
this on our first call after the WLS work concludes, which will probably be 
within 2 weeks.

Marilyn







-- 
------
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org, mailto:love at cptech.org
voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040