Re: [atlarge-discuss] Community & Registrar Input on Transfers

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

Hugh,

Thank you for your kind remarks.  While there is a value in a "recap" on the 
transfers issue, my fear is that the task force process is such that TF 
members will downplay the documentation in their rush to push through the 
plan currently on the table (for lack of an alternative).  The current 
proposal may be read at 
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021016.NCTransfertTF-interim-report.html

A second proposal has also been put forth by the VeriSign Registry (although 
the Task Force does not even seem to be aware of this proposal as yet).  This 
Interim Plan may be found at 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/doc00119.doc The risk posed 
by the VeriSign proposal stems primarily from the fact that current 
provisions regarding transfers are embodied within Exhibit B in the 
Registry-Registrar agreement, and Verisign is empowered to modify this 
agreement without the consent of either the registrars or the DNSO -- it 
requires only ICANN approval:

"In the event that revisions to VGRS's Registry-Registrar Agreement are 
approved or adopted by the U.S. Department of Commerce, or ICANN, as 
appropriate, Registrar will execute an amendment substituting the revised 
agreement in place of this Agreement, or Registrar may, at its option 
exercised within fifteen (15) days, terminate this Agreement immediately by 
giving written notice to VGRS."  [section 6.1] 
http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-appf-com-16apr01.h

tm

What is needed is an At-Large proposal (solution) to counterbalance these two 
documents that puts forward user concerns and perspectives.  Fortunately, we 
have a bit of time... the comment period is currently scheduled through 
November 8, but the Chair of the Task Force has just proposed a one week 
extension (her comments are at 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00597.html )

If you, or others, would like to work (for the next two weeks only) on a 
draft policy recommendation that can be implemented through the ICANN process 
(but that would not constitute "regulation" -- as ICANN lacks the authority 
and accountability to function as a regulator), then I will be happy to 
cooperate in this effort.  

I am given to understand (and please correct me if I am wrong) that 
icannatlarge still has no dedicated lists for use by working groups.  If that 
is still the case, we could probably set this up through an exchange of 
comments cc'd to all interested participants... let me know if this might be 
of interest.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de