[ncdnhc-discuss] Fwd: [nc-transfer] reminder of upcoming call/vote on recommendations

[Erick Iriarte Ahon]

Hi..

The constituency have recommendations or comments to the Transfer TF document?

Erick

>Delivered-To: faia at amauta.rcp.net.pe
>Subject: [nc-transfer] reminder of upcoming call/vote on recommendations
>Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 23:15:05 -0400
>X-MS-Has-Attach:
>X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
>Thread-Topic: reminder of upcoming call/vote on recommendations
>Thread-Index: AcIuCU+bB9j7UYeySzeZhUUd1DYu+Q==
>From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade at att.com>
>To: "Transfer TF (E-mail)" <nc-transfer at dnso.org>
>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by dnso.dnso.org id 
>FAA14323
>Sender: owner-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